Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi SPOKEN NIGERIAN ENGLISH: INTERROGATING THE ERAS Carol Ngozi Anyagwa1 Department of English, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria Emmanuel Adedayo Osifeso2 Department of English, Augustine University, Ilara-Epe, Lagos, Nigeria Abstract This paper captures about six decades of active scholarly engagement in Spoken Nigerian English by linguists across the globe. It begins with the earlier period of refutation and assertion of the existence of this local variety of English by the purists and the pro-Nigerian English scholars respectively; and follows the trend to the present time when scholarly efforts are geared towards characterising and codifying this variety. Presenting the result of a diachronic study, the paper analyses the dominant trends in each era, having identified three eras – late 1950s to the late 70s (tagged Early SNE), 1980 to 1999 (tagged Intermediate SNE) and 1999-2019 (tagged Modern SNE) – of roughly twenty years each. It demonstrates the critical issues which dominate studies in Spoken Nigerian English at each point. It further establishes that in the characteristic dynamic and evolutionary nature of language, Spoken Nigerian English (SNE hereafter) has gradually developed distinctive features which cut across regional, social and educational boundaries. Keywords: Spoken Nigerian English (SNE), Accent Differentiation, Evolution, Codification, Model. Introduction Studies on the Nigerian English Accent span six or more decades characterised by the celebrated dynamism of the phenomenon - language. Many of these studies reveal that Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi developments in SNE have been steadily interesting. In the earlier days of its emergence, the entire concept of Nigerian English (NE hereafter) was a source of controversy between the purists, who rejected every deviation from British English norms and passed same off as errors, and the pro-Nigerian English scholars, who pushed for the acceptance of such deviations as evidence of an emerging local dialect. In the present time, however, SNE has gradually but consistently assumed a definite shape. Interestingly, the timely publication by Platt et al. (1984) of The New Englishes and Kachru‟s (1982, 1985) Three Circles Model of World Englishes laid to rest the question of the reality or not of the existence of New Englishes, of which Nigerian English is one, thus setting the pace for more engaging, empirical studies. Many of these studies have involved subjects representing different geographical, professional, educational and generational groupings. While the Early SNE Era (late 1950s to the late 70s) focused mainly on varieties differentiation and regional accents distinction, the Intermediate SNE Era (1980 to 1999) produced enviable volumes of scholarly materials on the segmental and suprasegmental features of SNE. The Modern SNE Era (1999-2019) has produced masterpieces in the area of instrumental/experimental phonetics and has particularly been distinguished by the various successful attempts towards the application of modern phonological theories to the analysis of SNE texts. In this study, we engage each era, bringing to the fore the leading scholars and their contributions towards the advancement of the Spoken Nigerian English cause. The Early SNE Era: Late 1950s to the Late 1970s This period featured notable works such as Brosnahan (1958), Banjo (1970, 1971), Bamgbose (1971), Tiffen (1974), Adetugbo (1977), Jubril (1979) and Adekunle (1979); and also saw the inauguration of the Nigerian English Studies Association (NESA) in 1966.True to the nature of humans, the crop of linguists who existed at that time was not unanimous in Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi her reception of the idea of Nigerian English. While such dissenting voices as Prator (1968) and Brann (1975) denied its existence outright, Salami (1968) viewed it with scepticism as “errors of usage”. Vincent (1974) saw it as “bad English” while Adekunle (1974) totally accepted it as a Nigerian variety of the Standard British English. This scenario inspired Adetugbo‟s (1977) „Nigerian English: Fact or Fiction?‟ in which he sought to and actually succeeded in laying the argument to rest to enable more productive research on the distinctive features of the variety. Remarkable contributions to this subject in this era were mainly in the area of varieties differentiation and regional accents distinction. Varieties Differentiation in the Early SNE Era Brosnahan (1958) set the pace for varieties differentiation in SNE using educational attainment as a criterion. He identified four levels ranging from Pidgin English (spoken by those who do not have a formal education) to the Level IV variety (spoken by those with university education). Dissatisfied with his classification, Banjo (1971), adopting a criterion based on the extent of mother tongue transfers and approximation to a world standard, and adding variables of international intelligibility and social acceptability, also identifies four varieties. His range from Variety I (marked by much interference from local languages, neither socially acceptable nor internationally intelligible) to Variety IV (identical to native Standard English at all levels, maximally internationally intelligible but socially unacceptable and spoken by a handful of Nigerians born and brought up in the inner circle). Essentially, the two studies aptly captured the situation of SNE as at the time they were carried out. Although Brosnahan‟s identification of Pidgin as a typical level of English usage in Nigeria and Banjo‟s inclusion of Variety IV which has no Nigerianism in it remain a controversial topic till date (Okoro 2004, Udofot 2003), the two studies are, arguably, solid reference points for studies on varieties differentiation in SNE even in the Modern Era. Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi Regional Accents Distinction in the Early SNE Era The era was not totally about varieties differentiation; there was yet another hurdle. Banjo (1971) noted that the absence of codification had given rise to “competing standards of correctness”. Correspondingly, Grieve (1964) and Bamgbose (1971) made a case for the choice of a model of spoken English in Nigeria. Endorsing an endoglossic model, Banjo (1975: 142) emphasized that it was „out of the question to import a standard from outside‟. There then existed (as today) identifiable differences in the spoken English of Nigerians from different parts of the country, making the choice of an endoglossic model rather difficult. This observed difference inspired a number of studies on regional accents of Nigerian English including Brosnahan (1958), Tiffen (1974), Jibril (1979), and Obanya, Dada and Oderinde (1979). Brosnahan (1958), in his study on “English in Southern Nigeria”, observed that there was a great deal of similarity in the English accents of Southern Nigerian ethnic groups and also “all along the West Coast of Africa”. Jibril (1979), in his “Regional Variation in Nigerian Spoken English”, adds that „as one moves up North, one notices a great deal of similarity in the English spoken by members of the numerous ethnic groups who inhabit the area‟. Thus, in line with their observations, the era recognized two Nigerian English accents - the Northern and the Southern. Jibril (1979) also clearly identifies the points of „divergence between the Northern and the Southern accents‟ which he claims are “profoundly significant”. He explains that the variation is historically and linguistically-induced; and is also quick to note that the divergence „is not of such magnitude as to seriously impede mutual intelligibility of the two accents‟. An interesting turn in his study is his report of a survey on the extent of southern influence on young northerners‟ English. The survey reveals that the Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi distinction between the two broad accents was fast disappearing – a pointer to the emergence of a distinct accent of Nigerian English. Another interesting dimension to this era‟s studies on the regional accents of Nigerian English was Tiffen‟s (1974) intelligibility study of the Northern (represented by Hausa speakers) and Southern (represented by Yoruba speakers) accents. Using twenty four first year undergraduates, the study demonstrated that Hausa speakers were „significantly more intelligible than Yoruba speakers‟. This higher intelligibility rating of the Northern accent had been hinted at in Banjo (1970) and Thompson (1963). The era was no doubt productive as the foundation of studies on SNE was laid therein. Although subsequent researches may have been favoured by technological advancement and the general upward shift in the quality of academic researches across the globe, the contributions of these earlier works remain valid till date. The era was neatly wrapped up in 1979 with the publication of Varieties and Functions of English in Nigeria by the Nigerian English Studies Association, in which both completed and on-going researches on the concept of Nigerian English (including SNE) in the latter half of the 20th Century were documented. The Intermediate Era: 1980 – 1999 The two decades following the 1970s witnessed an avalanche of scholarly works on SNE. Prominent among them are: Bamgbose (1982), Jibril (1982, 1986), Kujore (1985, 1990), Awonusi (1985, 1987), Eka (1985), Odumu (1987), Jowitt (1991), Atoye (1991), Banjo (1996), Udofot (1997). The period was dominated by works on varieties differentiation, SNE segmentals and suprasegmentals. In this section, we review selected works from this era based on the three areas mentioned. Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi Varieties Differentiation in the Intermediate Era Three main criteria were adopted in categorising SNE varieties during the era in review. The first criterion is the level of native language or mother tongue influence. The second criterion is level of formal education while the third is comparison with Standard British English (SBE hereafter). Jibril (1986) adopted the first criterion in his study; Bamgbose (1982) and Eka (1985) explored the second while Udofot (1997) pioneered the third. Jibril (1982) identifies the geographical varieties of NE in line with the three major regions of the country, namely: the Eastern, Western and Northern regions, using the vowel systems of the three major languages in Nigeria (Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba) as the basis of his variety differentiation. He also classifies each variety into two broad categories – „basic‟ and „sophisticated‟ varieties. He attests that the sophisticated varieties among the three linguistic groups coalesce at some level. Following the same approach, Jowitt (1991) categorically states that there are three broad phonemic systems of Nigerian English. He explains: A survey follows of what we must now refer to in the plural as the PNE Phonemic systems, or rather of the differences in the phoneme system between RP and PNE characteristic of the three main ethnic groups. To this end I employ the acronyms PNE(H), PNE(I) and PNE(Y), corresponding to the Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba pronunciation systems respectively (p. 71). He uses the term PNE as an acronym for Popular Nigerian English. He also classifies SNE into three on the basis of the influence of the three dominant languages. He goes further to characterise each of the „accents‟ at the phonemic level by describing how an average speaker of each realises the forty-seven (sic) vowels, diphthongs, triphthongs and consonants of English. For example, he claims that none of the three accents articulates /ᴂ/, /ɑ:/, /ᴧ/ and /з:/ Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi because the phonemes do not occur in the sound inventory of their first languages but they are realised with „close substitutes‟ in the articulatory space. He notes that /з:/ does not occur in any of the Nigerian indigenous languages and, being a central vowel, is realised in several ways. PNE(H) invariably realizes it as [ɑ:] while PNE(I) and PNE(Y) realise it as [ɔ] when its spelling correlate is <ur, or, or>, and as [a] or [ɛ] when the correlate is <ir, ear, or, er>; hence [wɔd] for word, [sa] for sir, [ɛθ] or [aθ] for earth, e.t.c.(p.73). The second approach, already pioneered by Banjo (1971), was endorsed by Bamgbose (1982) and Eka (1985) who consider his (Banjo‟s) categorisation as the most realistic among the various Nigerian English variety differentiation types. For instance, Bamgbose (1982:105) states: “I accept Banjo‟s Variety III as the only plausible Standard Nigerian English.” To Eka (1985:16), “the realistic nature of Banjo‟s article is the basis for its popularity and prestige”. In addition, he believes that Banjo‟s categorisation has greatly dominated the literature of Nigerian English and influenced the direction of scholarly endeavours in Nigeria in innumerable ways. To support this claim, he cites works such as Adesanoye (1973), Odumuh (1981) and Jibril (1982). The third approach was advocated by Udofot (1997) who conducted a comparative study of SNE and SBE. The outcome led to her reclassification of SNE into three varieties, different from Banjo‟s four-variety classification model. Hence, using the subjects‟ spontaneous speech/utterances as the basis of categorisation, Variety 1 is the non-standard variety. It includes stress patterns that fail the twin criteria of international acceptability and intelligibility among the educated NE speakers. The stress pattern of this variety is characterised by the production of additional syllables which involve vowel substitutions and epenthesis. It also features the progressive stress shift pattern noticed in Variety II. Variety II Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi is what she calls Standard Variety. This is the variety spoken by teachers with tertiary education and it shows some significant differences from the speakers of Variety III in terms of stress placement. Variety III is what she terms the Sophisticated Variety. The stress pattern of this variety shares some features with SBE pattern in terms of primary stress placement. The only difference between it and SBE pattern is in its accent (cumulative aural effect which identifies where a speaker comes from). She concludes that despite having three varieties, SNE is a continuum because there are common core features which unite the varieties. Prosody of Nigerian English in the Intermediate Era Works such as Bamgbose (1982), Eka (1985), Jibril (1982, 1986), Ufomata (1996) and Udofot (1997) have described the prosodic features of Spoken Nigerian English focusing on assimilation, stress, rhythm, and intonation. Writing on assimilation, Jibril (1982) notes that three types of assimilation are noticeable in Spoken Nigerian English: place, manner and voice. He observes that only nasals undergo place assimilation in Nigerian English. Examples are „government council‟ /gʌvməŋkaunsl/and „man power‟ /mam pawa/. He observes that assimilation of manner is evident in alveolars and it involves the change of /d/ and /n/ to liquids; moreover, this is directionally regressive. He uses „would like‟/wullaik/ as an example. In terms of voicing, he attests that this is evident only word finally in plosives when the following word begins with a voiced consonant; for example, „with the‟ /wid di/ (note, however, that the actual consonants /θ/ and /ð/ are fricatives, the average Nigerian speaker realises them as plosives). He adds that this is also an instance of regressive assimilation. Moreover, using Standard British English as the basis of their comparison, Jibril (1986) and Ufomata (1996) show that sentence stress in Nigerian English is rarely used for emphasis or contrast and information given is often times not deaccented. Meanwhile, Eka (1985), using Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi penultimate year undergraduates as subjects, attests that Nigerian English prosody exhibits a preference for “end-stress” in an intonation phrase. The subjects were English and Education students with English as the major teaching subject. Consequently, they are comparable to Banjo's (1971) Variety III which represents speakers of standard SNE. The outcome thus suggests that in SNE, many lexical items do attract stress in locations other than their natural positions in SBE. However, in a later study, Eka (1993, 1-11) disagrees with the much touted claim that SNE is syllable-timed. He rather describes the rhythm of the Educated Variety as 'inelastic- timed' based on its tendency to have more prominent syllables than SBE. He further attributes the many prominent syllables to the Nigerian speakers‟ inability to 'squeeze in' or 'stretch out' the syllables in a given rhythm unit within the allotted time, compared to a native speaker who, according to him, uses elastic-timed rhythm. In another instance, Udofot (1993) studies the rhythm of the spoken English of selected final year secondary school students whose form of spoken English is comparable to Banjo's (1971) Variety II which approximates Jowitt (1991)‟s Popular Nigerian English. The result also shows a preponderance of prominent syllables in the subjects‟ responses which agrees with Eka‟s (1985) submission. However, unlike Eka who prefers the term 'inelastic- timed' to describe SNE rhythm, Udofot maintains that it is syllable-timed in its pure form. Udofot (1997) conducted a study in which the subjects read a passage of 143 syllables. The outcome shows that the NE speakers stressed between 63 and 121 syllables while the British English control had stressed 61. In her analysis she notes that there is a predominance of prominent syllables in the utterances of Educated NE speakers, regardless of their socio-economic and educational background, which results from their propensity to articulate both long and short Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi vowels with equal timing. She further observes that the exact nature of the rhythm of the spoken Nigerian English appears controversial because although the varieties are individually different, they are yet collectively different in rhythm from SBE as suggested by the control's output. Atoye‟s (1991) focus was the NE word stress system. The study found that the average Nigerian speaker of English usually engages in progressive stress shift of English words. He cites examples of words such as clariFY, cultiVATE, instiGATE, jourNAlism, privaTISE, purCHASE, triBAlism and utiLISE, contrary to SBE‟s where the words are stressed on the first syllable. He, however, observes that this situation does not necessarily imply that all English words are stressed in a deviant manner by Nigerian speakers. He believes that some words are rightly stressed (in the context of SBE) but they are so done based on certain factors which he later identified in Atoye (2005). The era unarguably produced insightful works on the prosody of SNE. This again formed a foundation for the next era when NE scholars explored the field of theoretical linguistics to a great depth. Some of the issues raised in this era were, in the Modern Era, dissected using both linear and non-linear phonological frameworks. They will be discussed shortly. MODERN SNE ERA: 2000 – 2019 The Modern era spans the turn of the 21st century up to the present moment (2019). It features the works of a few scholars of the Intermediate Era, a lot more veteran scholars of the early 21st century as well as some contemporary scholars. The focus of this era shifted slightly from varieties differentiation and segmentals to accent variation (Awonusi, 2004; Igboanusi, Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi 2006; Bobda, 2007; Olajide and Olaniyi, 2014); instrumental phonetics (Akinjobi, 2004; Jolayemi, 2008; Anyagwa, 2013) and prosodic phonology (Jowitt, 2000; Gut, 2001; Atoye, 2005). Some studies focused on the application of phonological theories to the study of stress and other prosodic aspects of SNE (Akinjobi, 2006; Omachonu, 2008; Bobda, 2010; Anyagwa, 2013; Oladipupo, 2014; Sunday and Oyatokun, 2016; Osifeso, 2017). The list above is by no means exhaustive. Accent Variation in the Modern Era Awonusi (2004) proposes the term Nigerian English Accent (NEA) to describe SNE. He observes that NEA has a “separate phonological system, which has correspondences in the Received Pronunciation (RP hereafter) and some other English accents.” While suggesting that neither of the two accents is superior to the other, he notes that a number of variables contributed to the evolution of NEA. Such factors include: linguistic interference, the tradition of English teaching in Nigeria, influence of orthography, articulatory settings, sociocultural values and incipient foreign values. He affirms that while RP has twenty four consonants, NEA consonants inventory ranges between sixteen and twenty-two. Of particular notice is his description of NEA‟s realisations of /h/ and /j/. He identifies five /h/ realisations which include „h-weakening‟, „h-restoration‟, „categorical h-dropping‟, „variable h-dropping‟ and „h-insertion‟. For /j/, he identifies three realisations – „epenthetic yod insertion‟, „orthographic yod insertion‟ and „vision yodding‟. For vowels, he describes some as basic (/i,e,ε,a,ɒ,ʊ,u:/) while others are marginal (/ɪ, ɔ:,o,i:, ʌ, æ, ǝ/) in NEA. Still on the segmentals, Bobda (2007) refers to SNE as having localised segments both for vowels and consonants. He observes that thirteen consonants, namely: /t, d, θ, ð, p, b, f, v, r, l, Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi v, w, h/ are realized with peculiarities, in varying manner between the dominant northern and southern sub-accents. He shows the main patterns of their realisation as follows: Table 1: RP Consonants Realisation in SNE Consonant Realisation /t, d/ [t, d], but also dental [tz, dz] in southern accents /θ, ð/ [t, d; ts, ds] in the south; [t, d, s, z] in the north /p, b, f, v/ confusion in northern accents; possible further occurrence of labialised fricatives [φ] and [β] in the north /l, r/ overwhelming frequency of confusion in the south /ʧ/ [ʃ] in many southern accents; occurrence of hypercorrect [/ʃ/ for /ʧ/] /ʃ/ [s] in some northern accents /h/ often silent in Yoruba and other southern accents; hypercorrect occurrence of /h/ also heard In addition to the above, he notes that two other features that characterise SNE are spelling pronunciation and analogical pronunciation. According to him, “Spelling pronunciations include the pronunciation of letters which are silent in most mother tongue English accents”; for example: debt [dεbt], aren’t [arənt], indict [indaikt], Wednesday [wεdnεsde] listen [listən]. He describes analogical pronunciation as “a phenomenon whereby the pronunciation of a word is induced by its resemblance with another word”; examples: bigamy (cf. bilingual) [baigami], peasant (cf. peace) [pizant], divorce (cf. other words in di-) [daivɔs], compilation (cf. compile) [kɔmpaile∫ɔn] engineer (cf. English) [inʤiniε], impious (cf. pious) [impajɔs], declaration (cf. declare) [dikləre∫ɔn], incur (cf. cure) [inkjɔ], preparation (cf. prepare) Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi [pripəre∫ɔn], Janet (cf. Jane) [ʤenεt], reservation (cf. reserve) [rizəve∫ɔn], demon (cf. lemon) [demɔn]. Olajide and Olaniyi (2014), referencing Cruttenden‟s (2008) revised version of Gimson’s Pronunciation of English, assert that the term RP is no longer the exclusive preserve of the „upper crust‟ of SBE based on a number of past and present realities. They, therefore, observe that the „British‟ RP is giving way to Regional RP‟s such as those of the United States of America (USA), Canada, Australia and New Zealand (see Kachru 1997:213) and those of the Outer Circle group such as Nigeria, Bangladesh, Kenya and Pakistan. They demonstrated the phonological structure of the Nigerian RP. SNE Prosody in the Modern Era Gut (2001) did a comparative analysis of NE prosody and that of Southern British English. The results show clear prosodic differences between the two varieties of spoken English. For instance, it demonstrates that Nigerian speakers segment a text into more phrases than British speakers and therefore produce fewer syllables per phrase. She adduces this to the slower speech rate auditory impression in NE attested to in Udofot (1997). She adds that the rate of vowel intervals in speech rhythm is greater in NE than in BE. She further affirms SNE to be syllable-timed, in terms of the vowel percentage, just like Spanish, Catalan, Italian and French. She, however, submits that SNE shows a higher standard deviation of consonantal intervals than those languages. Compared to other varieties of English, she affirms that SNE rhythm is similar to that of Singaporean English. Akinjobi (2006) investigates educated speakers of Yoruba English from the point of view of vowel duration. The study focuses on the subjects‟ production of vowels in typically unstressed syllables of English words whose suffixes require a stress shift and a consequent Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi vowel reduction. The results show that most of the subjects produced full strong vowels in the syllables that should lose their stress in SBE as a result of adding suffixes. Consequently, the subjects did not make the required contrasts in duration between stressed and unstressed syllables. She concludes that educated speakers of Yoruba English do not reduce vowels that are regularly reduced in SBE. Anyagwa (2015), adopting a comparative approach, demonstrates that Yoruba English and Igbo English significantly differ in stress realisation. Using data collected from fifty University of Lagos undergraduates of Yoruba and Igbo extraction, and analysed statistically using the t-test, the study highlights the internal differences between the stress systems of the Yoruba and Igbo accents of NE. The study identifies regional variation in word stress patterns as another clog in the wheel of progress of SNE codification process. Delineating Standard Spoken Nigerian English Okoro (2004) suggests two main criteria for determining standard SNE - Local Acceptability and International Intelligibility. Responding to Adekunle‟s (1979:11) questions on what foreign variety of English should be adopted as standard SNE, he says: “given our sociolinguistic situation, it is not realistic to adopt a borrowed variety of spoken English as the standard for Nigeria.” He identifies factors like general attitude of resentment to a foreign form and linguistic factors as militating factors against the adoption of any foreign accent as standard. Moreover, he observes the under-differentiation of word pairs that are partial homophones as one of the common features of SNE; for example: sit/seat, shot/short, full/fool, pull/pool, walk/work. He proposes that the type of pronunciation used by Nigerian news casters be adopted as a target model because of the distinct „Nigerianness‟ in it which makes it easy enough to distinguish it from those of native speakers of English. Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi Application of Phonological Theories to SNE Prosody Two major theoretical approaches have been predominantly applied to the study of SNE in this era – rule-based and constraint-based approaches. Adopting the Generative approach (rule-based), Bobda (2007) identifies particular contextual processes as the hallmarks of SNE. They include /ə,i/ insertion, yod processes, patterns of /l/ vocalisation in final /Cl/ clusters, processes involving nasals, processes involving post-nasal /g/, plosive deletion before syllable-final /s/, and deletion of velars in certain environments. He expresses the processes of rules interaction which yield the surface forms in SNE. He notes four of such patterns, using RP as a basis of comparison with other Englishes: (i) Rules that are shared with other Englishes - Examples - CC-Laxing, Cluster Simplification, I-Laxing, Gliding, Palatalisation, R-Dropping, Velar Softening (ii) Some RP rules which do not apply in SNE - Vowel Reduction: Final /b/ Deletion, LAllophonic Rule, R-Insertion, Voicing Assimilation, Z-Devoicing. (iii) Some RP rules which apply differently in SNE: Ks-Voicing, Spirantisation, Glide Deletion, Post-Nasal /g/ Deletion, Pre-R Breaking, Trisyllabic Lax-ing, Vowel Insertion, CiV Tensing, S-Voicing, Yod Deletion. (iv) Some SNE rules not attested in RP: Cr-Breaking, Post-Vocalic /l/ Deletion, Post-Vocalic Nasal Deletion, Nasal Insertion, Pre-S Deletion, Velar Deletion, ε-Tensing, Final Devoicing, Glide. Akinjobi (2004) and Anyagwa (2013), adopting the framework of Metrical theory, analysed the rhythm and stress patterns respectively of two different accents of SNE. Their analyses revealed the preponderance of the S(trong) syllables in SNE which alters the stress isochrony of English. Oladipupo (2014) examines aspects of the connected speech processes (CSP‟s) in SNE using the framework of Natural phonology (NP). The analysis shows three categories of Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi CSP‟s in educated NE: dominant, minor, and idiosyncratic processes. The CSP‟s represent the phonological processes that characterise connected speech in Nigerian English at varying degrees. However, the study adjudges the dominant CSP‟s as typifying standard SNE. Some of the features of the dominant CSP‟s he identifies are: regressive devoicing, progressive devoicing, final devoicing, nasal assimilation and elision. He concludes that speakers of Nigerian English have a tendency for “CSP‟s that are more natural, common, and attested in more languages, and those involving sound segments or features that are easily accessible in their indigenous languages”. Adopting the constraint-based Optimality Theory, Omachonu (2008) examines SNE word stress. He attempts a comparative optimality account of primary stress assignment in SBE and NE, sourcing his data from Igala speakers of English. He characterises NE as having a tendency to reverse the SBE contour 1-2 (where 1 represents primary stress, and 2, secondary stress) to 2-1 in disyllabic words, citing such examples as maDAM, triBUNE, perFUME, forFEIT, etc; where the reverse is the case for SBE. For some trisyllabic words, he states that SNE prefers the contour 2-3-1 (where 3 represents tertiary stress) to SBE‟s 1-3-2. The following are some of the examples he gave: cineMA, telePHONE (SBE: CInema, TElephone). For trisyllabic words with the contour 3-1-2 in SBE, SNE goes for 3-2-1. Examples include contriBUTE, embarRASS (SBE: conTRIbute, emBARrass). He analysed his data using two prominent constraints: NONFINALITY and UNEVEN-IAMB. The result of his analysis shows UNEVEN-IAMB >> NONFINALITY i.e. UNEVEN-IAMB is a preferred constraint to NONFINALITY. Sunday and Oyatokun (2016) also exploring the optimality framework, analysed word stress in NE using data collected from one hundred and fifty (150) educated Nigerians. The Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi outcome of their analysis shows that SNE exhibits a natural reordering of the universal constraints which results in a largely uniform stress pattern that significantly varies with that of SBE. Unlike SBE which has a general tendency for leftward or backward primary stress, the samples showed a preference for a more rightward syllable. Hence, the constraint ranking is as follows: ROOT >> TROCH >> *CSR >> NON-INI >> WTS, P SYLL >> ALIGN L, FT BIN, albeit in slightly varying forms. In conclusion, their study reveals the following four observations: (i) no syllable is obscure in SNE - all words have full forms of vowel; (ii) no significant instance of syncope; (iii) no significant occurrence of syllabic nasals; and (iv) high pitch is the most important correlate of stress. Osifeso (2017), also exploring the optimality framework, analysed the speech of One hundred mesolectal Yoruba speakers of NE. He employed the following constraints– NONFINALITY, UNEVEN-IAMB, and ALL-FT-LEFT. The results demonstrate that word stress among the speakers varies based on lexical, morphological and phonological composition of the word. The result shows that word stress among Yoruba speakers of NE is usually rightward. He adds that the only lexical category that contracts a different type of stress pattern in the Yoruba sub-accent of NE is the trisyllabic adjective which usually attracts stress on the initial syllable. Concluding, he affirms that the most prominent constraint among NE speakers is UNEVEN-IAMB which prefers the assignment of stress on Light-Heavy syllables to Light-Light or Heavy syllables. Generally, the era has been exciting and academically productive. The paradigm shift from the earlier approaches to theory-backed descriptions has been a welcome development and Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi has aligned the efforts of NE scholars with international standards. As the next era unfolds, it is anticipated that studies in SNE will be taken to the next level, particularly with the number of vibrant and young scholars who are zealously coming into the field. Conclusion This review has traced the developments in SNE as a subject of academic inquiry from its early days to the present time. Segmenting the period into three chronological eras of roughly a score of years each, it has been able to identify the issues which have dominated each era. The review has shown that there has been steady progression in the output of academic researches on SNE; the works of each era constitute a background for the next to build on. It has, however, revealed that there is still need for more definite steps to be taken towards the codification of SNE. There is an urgent need for implementation of the outcomes of these overwhelming researches. There is a clear indication that along the line, regional variation is deemphasised and actually disappears at some point on the educational/social ladder. This being the case, sustained effort needs to be made to clearly characterise SNE. All hands must be on deck to ensure that the results of our researches do not just end on the pages on which they are published but are channelled to the appropriate quarters. It is the duty of all to promote this SNE to guarantee that it someday takes its place among other New Englishes. References Adekunle, M. A. (1974): “The Standard Nigerian English in Sociolinguistic in JNESA, Vol. 6, No. 1. Perspectives,” --- 1979 “Non-Random Variation in the Nigerian English” in Ubahakwe, E. (ed.). Varieties and Functions of English in Nigeria. Ibadan: A.U.P./NESA pp 27-42. Adesanoye, F.A. (1973). A study of the varieties of written English in Nigeria.Unpublished Dissertation, University of Ibadan Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi Adetugbo, Abiodun (1977) “Nigerian English: Fact or Fiction” in Agheyesi, R.N. (ed.) Lagos Notes and Records, Faculty of Arts, University of Lagos, vol. IV.Pp 36-54 Akinjobi, A. (2004). “A Phonological Investigation of Vowel Weakening and Unstressed Syllable Obscuration in Educated Yoruba English”.Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. --- (2006) “Vowel Reduction and Suffixation in Nigeria.”English Today 20:18–20. Anyagwa, C. (2013). “Word Stress in Nigerian (Igbo) English”. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of Lagos, Nigeria. Anyagwa, C. (2015) “Word Stress in Nigerian English: A Comparative Study”, in Opeibi et al.(eds.) Essays on Language in Societal Transformation: A Festschrift in Honour of Prof. SegunAwonusi. Research in English and Applied Linguistics (REAL STUDIES) Vol 9pp 41-54. Gӧttingen: Cuvillier. Atoye, R. (1991) “Word Stress in Nigerian English.” World Englishes 10:1–6. --- (2005).“Word Stress in Nigerian English and the Challenges of Nigerian English Oral Literacy.”Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the NESA, pp39-46. Awonusi, S. (1985).“A Sociolinguistic Study of Nigerian (Lagos) English”. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of London --- (1987). “Regional Accents and Inherent Variability in Nigerian English: A Historical Analysis.” English Studies, 67.6: 555-560. --- (2004). “Some Characteristics of Nigerian English Phonology.”Nigerian English Influences and Chracteristics. Eds. Dadzie, A.B.K. and Awonusi, S. Lagos: Concept, pp 203-225. Bamgbose, A.(1971). “The English Language in Nigeria”.in Spencer, J. (ed.)The English Language in West Africa. London: Longman. Pp.35-48 … (1982)“Standard Nigerian English: Issues of Identification.” Ed. Kachru, Braj. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.: 99-109. Print. Banjo, A. (1970). “A Historical View of the English Language in Nigeria”. Ibadan. 28. Pp. 63-68. --- (1971). “Towards a Definition of Standard Nigerian Spoken English”.Actes du 8e Congress de la Société Linguistique de L‟ Afrique Occidental. Abijan. Pp. 24-28 . --- (1975). „The University and the Standardisation of the English Language in Nigeria‟ in Plurilinguisme a L’universite. Cahiers de L’institut des Langues Vivantes 26.UniversiteCatholique de Louvain. Pp. 133-147. . Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi … (1996). An Overview of the English Language in Nigeria. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press,. Brann, C. M. B. (1975). “Nigerian Oral English: A Plea for Exoglossic Standard” NESA Conference Paper (Mimegraph). Brosnahan, L. F. (1958): “English in Southern Nigeria”. English Studies. 39: Pp. 97-110. Eka, D. (1985) “A Phonological Study of Standard Nigerian English”. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation.Ahmadu Bello University. Eka, D. (1993). “Timing in educated spoken Nigerian English. Journal of Humanities3, 1-11. Grieve D (1964): English Language Examining._Lagos: AUP Gut, U. (2001) “Prosodic aspects of Standard Nigerian English.” http://wwwspectrum.uni-bielefeld.de.TAPS/Gut.pdfWeb. Accessed 9/12/2009. Igboanusi, H.(2006).“A Comparative Study of the Pronunciation Features of Igbo English and Yoruba English Speakers of Nigeria.”English Studies, 87.4 (2006): 490 – 497. Jibril, M. (1979).“Regional Varieties in Nigerian Spoken English,” in Ubahakwe, E. (ed.). Varieties and Functions of English in Nigeria. Ibadan: A.U.P./NESA pp43-53. … (1982). “Phonological Variation in Nigerian English”.Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation, University of Lancaster. … (1986) “Sociolinguistic Variation in Nigerian English.”English Worldwide 7 (1986): 4775. Print. Jolayemi, D. “Acoustic Analysis of Tone and Stress: An Illustration with Varieties of English Spoken in Nigeria.” Focus on English: Linguistic structure, Language variation and Discursive Use. Eds. Wolf, H., Peter, L. and Polzenhagen, F. Leipzig: Leipzig University Press, 2008: 105-119. Jowitt, D. (1991). Nigerian English Usage: An Introduction. Zaria: Longman. --- (2000). “Patterns of Nigerian English Intonation.”English World-Wide 21: 63–80. Kachru, B. B. (1982).The Other Tongue:English across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, Kachru, B. B. (1985). “Standards, Codification, and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language in the Outer Circle”. In Quirk, R. and H. Widdowson, (eds.) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and the Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi Kujore, O. (1985). English Usage: some Notable Nigerian Variations. Ibadan: Evans Brothers. … (1990) “Nigerian English Usage: Analogies, Aberrations, and Tyranny of the Idea.” Journal of English Studies Association XI: 1-12. Obanya, P., A. Dada & T. Oderinde (1979): “An Empirical Study of the Acceptability of Four Accents of Spoken English in Nigeria,” in Ubahakwe, E. (ed.), pp. 242 – 56 Odumuh, A. (1987). Nigerian English. Zaria: ABU Press,. Okoro, O. (2004). “The Identification of Standard Nigerian English Usage”. In Dadzie, A. B. K.&Awonusi, V. O., eds., Nigerian English: Influences and Characteristics, the Department of English, University of Lagos. Oladipupo, O. R. (2014) “Aspects of Connected Speech Processes in Nigerian English”.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014560527 Olajide B, Olaniyi O (2013). “Educated Nigerian English Phonology as Core of a Regional `RP”.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3 No. 14:277-286 Omachonu, G. (2008). “Comparative Optimality Theory Analysis of Primary Stress Assignment in Standard British and Nigerian English.” Journal of Language & Translation 9.1: 91-112. Osifeso, A. E. (2017). “Word Stress among Yoruba L2 Speakers of English in Lagos: An Optimality Approach.” MAJELS 2 (10) 19-28 Platt, J.; Weber, H.; Ho, M.L. (1984).The New Englishes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Prator, C. (1968).“The British Heresy in TESEL”, in Fishman, J. et al (eds.): Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Salami, A. (1968). “Defining a Standard Nigerian English” In Journal of Nigerian English Studies Association (NESA). 2. 2, 99-106. SimoBobda, A. (2007). “Some Segmental Rules of Nigerian English Phonology.” English World-Wide. 28 (3) 279-310. --- (2010) “Word Stress in Cameroon and Nigerian Englishes.” World Englishes 29.1:59–74. Sunday, A. B. &Oyatokun, O. O. (2016).“Optimality Theoretical Analysis of Word Stress in Educated Nigerian English”.SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13 (1): 87-106. Thomson, P. (1963). “The English in the Commonwealth: Nigeria”. English Language Teaching, Vol. 17 (4): 152-158. Tiffen, B. (1974). “The Intelligibility of Nigerian English”.Ph.D. Dissertation, University of London. Functional Approaches to Language and Literary Studies: Essays in Honour of Segun Awonusi Udofot, I. (1993). “Rhythm and Intonation: A Study of Performance by Ibibio Speakers of English”. Journal of Humanities 3: 19–27. … (1997). “The Rhythm of Spoken Nigerian English”. Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation. University of Uyo. … (2003). “Stress and Rhythm in the Nigerian Acccent of English: A Preliminary Investigation.” English World-Wide 24.2: 201-220. Ufomata, T. (1996).“Setting Priorities in Teaching Pronunciation in ESL ccontexts”. Retrieved: March 10, 2019 http://pitch.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/shl9/ufomata/titi Vincent, T. (1974) “Registers in Achebe” in Journal of Nigeria English Studies Association, Vol. 4, 95-106.