A Comparison of The Varieties of West African Pidgin English

World Englishes, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 3–21, 2007.
0883–2919
A comparison of the varieties of West African Pidgin English
LOTHAR PETER∗ and HANS-GEORG WOLF∗∗
ABSTRACT: In recent years, a number of studies on the national varieties of West African Standard
English have taken a comparative perspective, mostly dealing with phonetics (e.g. Simo Bobda, 1995,
2000a, b, 2003; Simo Bobda et al., 1999), but also with the lexicon (Wolf and Igboanusi, 2003). Similar
efforts with respect to the national varieties of Pidgin English spoken in West Africa. i.e. Ghanaian Pidgin
English, Nigerian Pidgin English, and Cameroon Pidgin English, have been lacking so far, if one disregards
the listing of diagnostic features in Huber (1999) and some implicit comparisons in Njeuma (1995). Our
paper is intended to be the first descriptive and systematic account of features that distinguish these va-
rieties from one another. Considering differences on the phonetic, grammatical, and lexical level, we will
draw from findings by other linguists who have investigated individual varieties of West African Pidgin
English (e.g. Huber, 1999 on Ghanaian Pidgin English; Elugbe and Omamor, 1991 and Faraclas, 1996 on
Nigerian Pidgin English; and Mbassi-Manga, 1973 and de Féral, 1989 on Cameroon Pidgin English), but
also on our own research, which is based on dozens of interviews with speakers of West African Pidgin
English.
INTRODUCTION
While comparative investigations of the structural quality of the varieties of West African
English (WAE) are well on their way (see e.g. Simo Bobda, 1995; 2000a, b, c; Simo
Bobda et al., 1999; Wolf and Igboanusi, 2003), little has been published in that respect
on the varieties of English-based pidgins in that region. There are studies which outline
the features that distinguish the Krio of Sierra Leone from West African Pidgin English
(WAPE) (see e.g. Berry, 1971; Njeuma, 1995; Huber, 1999), and no doubt major works
on the national varieties of WAPE exist. Most notably, one can mention Huber (1999)
on Ghanaian Pidgin English (GhaPE), Elugbe and Omamor (1991) and Faraclas (1996)
on Nigerian Pidgin English (NigPE), and Mbassi-Manga (1973) and de Féral (1989) on
Cameroon Pidgin English (CamPE).1 Although these studies provide a detailed account
of the structure of each variety in question, only Huber has attempted to contrast some
“diagnostic features” of the different varieties of English-based pidgins and creoles in
West Africa (in Huber, 1999) and has recently published (Huber, 2004a, b) a shorter
description of GhaPE in comparison with NigPE in particular.2 Yet all contributions on
varieties of WAPE, especially in the field of morphology and syntax, in the same handbook
(Kortmann et al., 2004), differ considerably with regard to internal structure and theoretical
perspective (also cf. Faraclas, 2004 on NigPE and Ayafor, 2004 on CamPE). Besides, one
can detect structural differences between NigPE and CamPE in Njeuma’s (1995) PhD thesis
on “Structural similarities between Sierra Leone Krio and two West African Anglophone
∗ Humboldt University Berlin, Department of English and American Studies, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin,
Germany. E-mail: lothar.peter@rz.hu-berlin.de
∗∗ University of Hong Kong, Department of English, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong. E-mail: hanswolf@hkucc.hku.hk

C 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
C 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA
02148, USA.
4 Lothar Peter and Hans-Georg Wolf
pidgins”, though not with the aim of differentiating them. To our understanding, no attempt
at a systematic contrastive description of the national varieties of WAPE based on a common
corpus has been made so far, and we feel the need to make a first effort in this direction.
Also, our type of theoretical description of aspects of morphology and syntax will, at least
partly, differ from the above-mentioned literature.
Our focus will be on the varieties of WAPE as they are spoken in Ghana, Nigeria, and
Cameroon. We bracket Liberian English for the following reasons. First, Liberians do not
consider their English-oriented varieties as “pidgin” (see Singler, 1997; Breitborde, 1998);
secondly, the Liberian variety commonly known as Kru Pidgin is considered to be closely
related to the Krio of Sierra Leone (see e.g. Huber, 1999: 68–9 for historical ties). Thus, we
remain with GhaPE, NigPE, and CamPE. To make it clear: Pidgin English is not spoken by
a sizeable portion of the population in any other West African country except those three.
It is not spoken in The Gambia, as some scholars may have it (see Todd, 1990: 13; Gramley
and Pätzold, 2003: 426).
While the national varieties of WAPE are structurally quite similar, they also exhibit a
number of distinctive features. This is not surprising, given the different linguistic situation
in each country and their close interaction, if not sociolinguistic continuity, with the national
varieties of WAE (see e.g. Simo Bobda and Wolf, 2003), whose structural differences are in
turn the outcome of a number of factors peculiar to each country (see Simo Bobda, 2003).
By and large, our paper will bracket the sociolinguistic aspects of the varieties of WAPE
in question and their role in the respective sociolinguistic situations. It is worth noting,
however, the different attitudes towards Pidgin English that prevail in Ghana, Nigeria, and
Cameroon. Researchers agree that in Ghana WAPE is held in lowest esteem, while it has
the widest acceptance in Nigeria; WAPE in Cameroon seems to range somewhere in the
middle (see e.g. Simo Bobda and Wolf, 2003; African Studies Center, n.d.). While one
can assume such an interrelation, it is not clear in which way and to what extent these
attitudinal differences bear upon the structural quality of the individual varieties of WAPE,
in terms of their converging with or diverging from the national varieties of Standard
English. In the following we will highlight the distinguishing features we detected in the
realms of phonology, grammar, and lexis, and, for the phonological level, will also point
to congruence between the national variety of WAPE and Standard English.
SOME NOTES ON METHOD AND DATA

In our research on West African Englishes (a term which includes WAPE), we have
repeatedly come across specific differences in the speech of WAPE speakers from Ghana,
Nigeria, and Cameroon. Attempting to systematize and to validate these differences, we
have cross-checked the distinctive features we discovered with the structural descriptions in
the works mentioned above. Our own data consists of dozens of interviews. These include
recordings of speakers of CamPE made on a research trip to Cameroon in 2001, as well
as recordings of speakers of GhaPE, NigPE, and CamPE carried out in Germany, most of
whom had not been away from their home countries for a long time. Overall we have about
100 hours of recording with an equally high number of speakers of CamPE and NigPE,
and, for several, including sociolinguistic, reasons, only a few of GhaPE. In addition,
we have asked colleagues in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Ghana for further verification of our
findings.3 Except for our Cameroonian speakers, most of the persons interviewed are male.
Our samples are more representative of the younger generation of WAPE speakers in each

C 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Varieties of West African Pidgin English 5
country, as most of the interview partners are between 20 and 35 years old. Admittedly,
we do not specifically differentiate our data according to the basilect/mesolect/acrolect
classification, as it is not relevant to the differences we detected, except perhaps for the
phonological ones. In other words, the distinguishing features are consistent across the
basilect–mesolect–acrolect range within each variety. One should bear in mind, however,
that our findings are generalizations, and variation may occur with the individual speaker
as well as within the varieties themselves.
FINDINGS
We found that most differences occur at the level of pronunciation, because this is where
the pressure of the national standard variety of English on the respective pidgin variety, and
vice versa, is most strongly felt. Yet there are systematic differences at the level of grammar
as well. We did note lexical differences, too, but there are only a few, if one excludes the
terms that, without change of meaning, also occur in the standard variety.
A striking finding with respect to the structural features of the varieties of WAPE,
especially in phonology, and to a lesser extent in lexis, is that each variety of WAPE closely
corresponds to the respective national variety of West African (Standard) English (WAE).
In a way, these correspondences speak against the strict barrier some creolists have erected
between the varieties of WAE and pidgins and creoles (see e.g. Barbag-Stoll’s (1983:
45–8) discussion of the problem). Often, it is L1 (standard) English, rather than some
“indigenized” second language variety (in our case, WAE), with which WAPE or another
pidgin is compared. This leads to conclusions as in Holm (2000: 1): “Their systems are so
different, in fact, that they can hardly be considered even dialects of their base language.”
Yet, for a typical speaker in the West African context, native(-like) or L1 standard English
is not an option at all. The form of English they generally encounter is a local form of
WAE.
Also, many speakers of WAE acquire pidgin first, usually in an informal setting, before
they start learning English in formal education at school. Therefore, the structure of their
English, also with regard to syntactic organization, is often influenced by pidgin. Thus,
neither on sociolinguistic grounds (see e.g. Wolf, 2001: 187–201) nor on structural grounds
can it be maintained that WAE and WAPE are two absolutely separate entities. This is
especially true of the structural peculiarities. Functionally, at the individual speaker’s level,
the ability to differentiate both forms rises with his/her degree of education and linguistic
skills.
1. PHONOLOGY
As mentioned above, there are prominent similarities between the national varieties of
WAE and the respective varieties of WAPE. These similarities primarily concern segmental
realization, but sometimes also prosody. In forms of WAPE as well as in WAE varieties
the following prominent distinctive segmental features can be observed.4
The rendering of RP
Though is not rendered as [a] as frequently in GhaPE as it is in Ghanaian English, the
occurrence of [a] in words like [ada] ‘other’, [safa] ‘suffer’, and [stadi] ‘study’ in GhaPE

is an established fact. Such occurrences of [a] contrast with general [ɔ] in NigPE (and in
Nigerian English) and CamPE (and Cameroon English) (see Simo Bobda, 2000c: 187–9;
Huber, 1999: 169–70), as in e.g. [ɔda] and [sɔfa] as well as [kɔntri] ‘country’ and [mɔni]
‘money’. For basilectal speakers of Ghanaian English as well as for speakers of GhaPE,
the occurrence of [ɔ] instead of [a] might be slightly higher.
The rendering of RP / /
Again, the pattern exhibited by speakers of GhaPE is markedly different from that
exhibited by speakers of the other two varieties. In GhaPE, in English-lexified words is
regularly substituted by [ ], as in [b n] ‘burn’, [w k] ‘work’ and [v d in] ‘virgin’, though
[ɔ] can occasionally occur for <or>, especially in more basilectal forms. In CamPE and
especially in NigPE, the realizations are more complex. Speakers from the southwestern
part of Nigeria (often with a Yoruba background) tend to split into [ɔ], [a], and [ ], often,
though not always, depending on the corresponding grapheme. <or, ur> are consistently
produced as [ɔ], as in [wɔk] ‘work’ and [tɔn] ‘turn’, while <er> can be [ɔ] or [a], as in
[pɔsin] ‘person’ and [ha] ‘her’, and <ear> [a] and [ ], as in [l n], [lan] ‘learn’. In the
southeastern part of Nigeria (stretching to the Cross River and Akwa Ibom states) and in
Cameroon, the realizations tend to [ ] and [ɔ], and only occasionally [a]; cf. for both areas
[f s] ‘first’, [g l] ‘girl’ and [tʃ tʃ] ‘church’ for [ ],5 [tɔn] ‘turn’ and [wɔk] ‘work’ for [ɔ]
as well as [ha] ‘her’. However, in our data, the form [tati] ‘thirty’ is specific to NigPE, as
opposed to CamPE [t ti].
Realization of <er>-endings with the plural form -s

Like Ghanaian English (see Simo Bobda 2000c), GhaPE has the peculiar feature of
changing /a/, which normally occurs for RP /ə/ in <-er>-endings to [ s], when a plural -s
is added, e.g. in [fad s] (fathers) (see Huber 1999: 204–5). In NigPE and CamPE, /a/ is
retained in such plural forms.6
2. GRAMMAR
Not only with respect to pronunciation, but also at the level of grammar, one can observe
more differences between GhaPE on the one hand and NigPE and CamPE on the other
than between NigPE and CamPE. Though the WAPE varieties share a common history (see
Huber, 1999: 57, 119–29; Holm, 1989: 410–12), the fact that NigPE and CamPE are more
similar can be ascribed to a common (linguistic) history of 40 years of joint administration,7
to geographical proximity and cross-border interchange between WAPE speakers from
Nigeria and Cameroon, and to the estimated 3 million Nigerians living in Cameroon today.
Thus, Ghana stands out, with the absence of a number of features. Accordingly, certain
linguistic markers are discussed with regard to their occurrence or non-occurrence. These,
in turn, will be dealt with subsequently in certain functional-grammatical fields, which
ensures that only such linguistic means of the respective varieties are investigated that are
functionally equivalent. As in section 1 (on phonology), the survey covers select elements
of general relevance and is therefore not meant to be exhaustive.

2.1. Reference to phenomena established by noun phrases / noun determination

Obviously, a fundamental function of an utterance is to establish reference to a person,
object, etc. by using noun phrases. Furthermore, the type of noun phrase chosen reveals
whether it conveys new information or relates to given information/shared knowledge (as
pragmatic presupposition). It also indicates the mode of reference (generic ‘class of entities’
vs. non-generic ‘individual/specific entity/∼ies’) and differentiates between singular and
plural. The latter is relevant to the structural description of forms of WAPE and becomes
visible in the use of plural markers, such as d m.
Postpositional d m as plural marker. The use of postpositional d m as a plural marker
is a feature that distinguishes GhaPE from NigPE and CamPE.8 Huber (1999: 205) points
out that he has not observed “a single instance of this pluralization pattern” in GhaPE, and
neither have we. This feature occurs in NigPE and CamPE, but the literature differs on the
frequency of occurrence in NigPE. Mafeni (1971: 110) considers d m to be the only plural
marker in this variety, and Faraclas (1996: 168) “the most commonly utilized means to
show plurality in nouns”. Tagliamonte, Poplack, and Eze (1997), though, found that d m
is used in less than 1% of their data, and that the English affix -s is the most commonly
used plural marker. However, their findings can be explained by their informants’ back-
ground: all twelve were highly educated middle-class speakers living in Canada. Thus,
the use of the Standard English form in the study by Tagliamonte, Poplack, and Eze does
not come as a surprise. For CamPE, which in itself is a highly homogeneous variety,
Ayafor (2004: 915) excludes any other plural marker, and we have no evidence to the
contrary.
The function of d m, however, is to establish a reference to more than one entity of a
class denoted by the noun. As Elugbe and Omamor (1991: 98) state, d m “occurs after the
noun head which is itself preceded by the definite article di ‘the’ or the demonstratives
dis ‘this’ and dat ‘that’” (their italics; also see the confusing description in Faraclas, 1996:
234). It is because of the deictic character of these words that they describe them as having
“definite reference”, or, consistent with the short introduction to the subchapter above,
non-generic reference. The article and the demonstrative pronouns are not differentiated
in this respect – a fact that separates WAPE from WAE. NigPE examples for this kind of
structure are9
di pikin-d m ‘the children’

dis wuman-d m ‘these women’
dat naif-d m ‘those knives’ (all taken from Elugbe and Omamor, 1991: 98),10
and, from CamPE,
dat wuman we i bin g t dat tu pikin-d m

‘that woman(,) who had those two children’ (de Féral: 91).
Note that the word pipul, which has a plural notion, is additionally pluralized by d m, as
examples in our corpus and in Elugbe and Omamor illustrate:

a ste fɔ di pipul-d m ‘I stayed with these people’

ɔda pipul-d m tu hɔndrid faʃɔn ‘other people’s two hundred customs’ (Elugbe and
Omamor: 97)
The pronoun im. This 3rd person singular subject personal pronoun is referred to dif-
ferently as (h)im/in/im by Huber (1999: 82, 197) and, in its two forms of existence i and
ji, called “pronom substitutif” for CamPE by de Féral (1989: 95). For NigPE, Elugbe and
Omamor (1991: 90) give i but add that “when the 3rd person pronuon [sic!] subject of
a surbordinate [sic!] clause and that of its main clause refer to the same entity, the main
clause subject is i while the subject of the surbordinate [sic!] is in” (their bold type). We
doubt for any form of WAPE that such distinctions can be kept at higher speech rates, in
casual speech and under the pressure of such common phonological processes as assimi-
lation or nasalization/deletion of nasals. This is also expressed by Huber (1999: 197), who
is also hesitant to accept the existence of im as stated by Amoako for GhaPE.11 Obviously,
the reason for the use of the graphic form (h)im is to maintain the morphological relation
to the English lexifier.12 For CamPE, on the basis of our recordings and interviews with
informants, we can rule out the use of im and in. In obvious parallelism, NigPE has in as
the 3rd person singular possessive pronoun as indicated by Elugbe and Omamor (1991:
90, 92–3). Again, CamPE deviates from NigPE in that, according to de Féral (1989: 100),
it has ji for the same function.
However, the personal pronoun has two forms in all WAPE varieties which are called
“free” and “bound” by Huber (1999: 197). We prefer the terms “marked” (because accen-
tuated, high tone) to free and “unmarked” (because non-accentuated, low tone) to bound.
The forms are referred to as i(n) (marked) and ı̀ (unmarked). This is an analogy to other
personal pronouns, notably mi (see below). Additionally, de Féral (1989: 95–8) shows a
unique feature of CamPE illustrated by the following examples:
ji, i d n k m si ju ‘as for him/her, (s)he has come to see you’ (de Féral: 97)
i d n si dis man ‘(s)he has seen this man before’ (de Féral: 96)
She restricts ji as a regular subject pronoun, though, to rare cases of Anglophone speakers
and as a marked pronoun to object (and further) function only. However, we think, at least
for Anglophones, there is a regular distinction between i and ji in the same way as described
above with regard to WAPE in general. So, CamPE is the only WAPE variety to have stressed
ji as the marked subject pronoun. It is also an exclusive CamPE marker. Moreover, ji has
a functional restriction: (marked) ji <for reference to persons> vs. (unmarked) i <for all
types of reference>.
The pronoun una. Another feature that distinguishes GhaPE from NigPE and CamPE
is the absence of the 2nd person plural pronoun una in the former variety, which has
ju instead.13 De Féral (1989: 94–5), though, has wuma, which seems to be a spelling
mistake, and wuna (with the variants wana and wona) for CamPE. Our observation is
that the pronoun, generally, is wuna for Anglophone users.14 Apart from this variation,
the pronoun systems of NigPE and CamPE are roughly identical, with one significant
exception, which will be treated in the following subsection.
The personal pronoun mi and the possessive pronoun mi. One feature that is unique
to NigPE is the use of the homophonous pronouns mi whose functions are expressed by

‘I’ and ‘my’, respectively. More technically, mi can appear as a 1st person singular subject
pronoun and as a 1st person singular possessive pronoun (cf. Huber, 1999: 82). For a
clear description of the NigPE peculiarity, it is necessary to explain the use of mi in all its
functions. As a rule, it is used in WAPE as a contrastive (emphatic) personal pronoun, as
in the CamPE sentence
mi, a kɔmɔt fɔ nɔtw s prɔv ns ‘(as for me,) I come from the North West Province’
In such a context, mi is a quasi-topicalizer as well (cf. section 2.2). Another way of

putting this is to say that in GhaPE and CamPE (and certain local forms of NigPE), it
cannot directly precede a verb, but is separated by the (non-contrastive genuine topic)
subject pronoun a (cf. Huber, 1999: 82). The last written example for the subjective use of
mi in CamPE we could find is in Mbassi-Manga (1973: 118), but we have not encountered
any such occurrence in our own, more recent data. We have been informed, however, that
Bororo (Fulani) people living in pidgin-speaking areas and using CamPE as a lingua franca
tend to use it (mi no g ti milik ‘I don’t have milk’). Elugbe and Omamor (1991: 90) do
not list mi as a subject pronoun for NigPE, and Faraclas (1996: 176, 179) argues that mi as
a subject pronoun cannot normally be “found in non-contrastive non-emphatic contexts”.
Yet while mi does occur in contrastive contexts as the subject pronoun together with a
in NigPE, we also observed the frequent use of mi in non-contrastive and non-emphatic
contexts. Examples from our data include:
mi go fɔ praimari skul ‘I went to (a) primary school’

mi no sabi dat wan ‘I don’t know this item’
mi de tɔk ‘I talk; I am talking’
The non-contrastive use of mi is known for the (partly Creole-like) varieties of the Warri
and Sapele area in the Niger delta. There is evidence that this feature has spread beyond
this region.
In GhaPE and CamPE, the 1st person singular possessive pronoun is ma, which is also
part of the grammar of NigPE (see Faraclas, 1996: 179), as is the more acrolectal (because
closer to standard English) my, which is listed in Elugbe and Omamor (1991: 90). Though
neither Faraclas nor Elugbe and Omamor make mention of the possessive pronoun mi for
NigPE,15 it does occur regularly in this variety (see also Huber, 1999: 82). Examples from
our data include
mi trazis blu ‘my trousers were blue’

mi mama go fɔ haus ‘my mother went home’
mi g t prɔbl m fɔ mi lan ‘I had a problem in my country’
Thus, NigPE is further differentiated from GhaPE and CamPE.

In the word class of pronouns, it is not only mi that requires further research as to its
current geographical and functional distribution or possible preferences. The same applies
to the 1st person plural possessive pronoun of WAPE. In our CamPE recordings, we have
awa as well as wi; cf. awa mak tde ‘our market day’ and f wi ples ‘in our place’. Given

the types of speakers we observed, the explanation of their distribution in CamPE cannot
be as straightforward as Huber’s description of aua being acrolectal and wi basilectal in
GhaPE (Huber, 1999: 200). At least for Anglophone CamPE speakers of the North West
Province, wi is the preferred, if not standard, form, even among educated people:
wi pikin de fɔ klas s v n ‘our child is in the seventh form’
The occurrence of awa in Cameroon may be due to processes similar to decreolization

and/or regional differences. For NigPE, Elugbe and Omamor (1991: 92) and Faraclas (1996:
179) only give awa.
2.2. Means determining the information structure

By “information structure” we understand the result of encoding degrees of communica-
tive importance or communicative value (CV) in the sentence. Principally, certain positions
of phrases in a sentence are assigned to certain degrees of CV, thus establishing a theme–
rheme structure. As WAPE is primarily used in spoken form, it is more flexible in this
respect compared to e.g. written English, due to prosodic and paralinguistic features, such
as sentence stress and voice qualifiers, which may override the position code. We will not
discuss such features, as they are too varied. Additionally and quite importantly, WAPE
makes enormous use of specific linguistic particles that either are means to establish cer-
tain degrees of CV or are used to emphasize or intensify (parts of) utterances. Such means
include na, s f and o, which will be dealt with subsequently. By comparison, in native
English their functions are usually rendered by prominent tone movements. Pidgin is also
less conventionalized in this field when only used as a lingua franca.
The particle na. The particle na plays an important role in highlighting pieces of infor-
mation in an utterance. It takes pre-position, i.e. it precedes the element it highlights. In
this function it is the prototypical marker in NigPE and CamPE. In fulfilment of this role
it is used in the following fairly closely related sub-functions:
(1) as a rhematizer in cleft sentences:
na di kasava wi plant ‘it was cassava (that) we planted/were planting’

na ki go tek am ‘it is the king who will take it’ (de Féral: 80)
na awa granpapa kɔm ‘it is our grandfather who came’ (Elugbe and Omamor: 107)
na klɔt in papa bai fɔ mi ‘it is a dress that her father bought for me’ (Elugbe and
Omamor: 105)
(2) as a focus marker:16
i bi na grup we pipul d ɔin ‘it is a group that people joined’
(3) as a copula (be):
mi papa na fama ‘my father is a farmer’

ma famili na katɔlik ‘my family is Catholic; we are Catholic’

(4) as an emphasizer
de n k d a na ‘they even knocked/were knocking at the door’
As the examples above show, it is often difficult to distinguish (1), (2) and (3). The
sentences under (3), for instance, can also be interpreted as having na as a focus particle.
(4) differs from the others in that it has more in common with s f (see below). We agree
with Huber (1999: 79, 92, 161–2) that na is too rare to be considered part of the grammar of
GhaPE. Huber writes that “na occurs in both Cameroon and Nigeria in all the functions it
covers in Krio”, which would be as copula, focus marker and preposition.17 In both NigPE
and CamPE, we have regularly found na as copula, as, e.g. in ma famili na katɔlik, and
as focus marker, as in i bi na grup we pipul dɔin. The reason for not having na (more
often) in GhaPE may be found in the fact that here it has not undergone the phonological
restructuring of English-lexified nau (cf. now) to na and has not become conventional, as in
NigPE and CamPE.18 Also note that in mainstream Nigerian English, many highly educated
people pronounce the closing diphthong /α / as the monophthong [a], and consequently
now as [na].
The particle . Traditionally, s f is recorded as a focus marker in the wider sense for
all WAPE varieties (see Faraclas, 1996: 116–17; Huber, 1999: 247–8; and de Féral, 1989:
146, who has s p as a variant of s f ). It translates into English as ‘even’ and has obviously
been extracted from the English forms myself/yourself . . ./ourselves/yourselves etc., but,
in contrast to English, has taken on new functions and widened its syntactic combinability,
and consequently its scope of focusing, from noun phrases to even whole clauses:
i no go skul s f (CamPE) (s)he didn’t even go to school’

ju no fit sabi f mek gut muzik s f ‘you don’t even know how to make good music’ (de Féral: 146)
de bri polispipu s f ‘they even brought policemen’ (Huber: 247)
dis una r d moto s f . . . ‘even this red car of yours’19 (Elugbe and Omamor: 97)
As can be seen in the examples given, s f is principally post-positional to its focalized

antecedent and often forms a kind of “focus frame” with it, thus enclosing syntactic units
of lower CV.
The particle di and its functional equivalents (competitors). Huber, quite detailed,
lists di , nɔ, tu and nau but also a:, k ra:, pa: and wa: (loans from Ghana’s languages)
as topicalizers (Huber, 1999: 248–52). In fact, not all of them are used for the pro-
cess of topicalization as we understand it. Furthermore, the use of the term “topic” in
“topic particle” is confusing, with an underlying concept that can also be referred to as
“marked theme” because the syntactic element is a grammatically marked subject matter
(or reference) of higher communicative weight (than the “normal” theme to be provided
later in the sentence).20 Nevertheless, for reasons of convenience and comparability, we use
“topicalization” and “topic particle” in Huber’s and others’ reading. In this context, only
di is fully functional as a topicalizer. It has the purpose to express something equivalent
to ‘as for’, ‘regarding’. In GhaPE it is used with different scopes of topicalized syntactic
units; cf. the example given in Huber (1999: 248): jɔ haus di , de b n am o ‘as for your
house, they burnt it down’.

In CamPE and NigPE, di is not attested at all. Faraclas (1996: 124), who investigated
the form of NigPE spoken in the city of Port Harcourt (Rivers State), mentions a number
of particles, such as ba, fa, sha and kwa(nu), obviously with an origin in local African
languages. Additionally, he as well as Elugbe and Omamor (1991: 108), who seem to have
covered non-regional features of NigPE, give ńkɔ́ as a topicalizer in yes-/no questions.
Most frequently across all WAPE varieties, syntactic units are topicalized by fronting and
putting them in a separate speech group, a process that is often termed “left-dislocation”
(cf. Huber, 1999: 251–2; Faraclas, 1996: 125; de Féral, 1989: 82–4). Nevertheless, CamPE
seems to differ from the other two by a more frequent, if not obligatory, use of introductory
elements. Huber states that these are optional in GhaPE; the same is suggested by Faraclas’
NigPE examples. Examples for CamPE are:
f ma said, we ai k m t wi k l am ‘ekwa’ ‘as for my people/tribe, where I come from,

we call it ekwa’,
f ma k zins, plenti de de go skul ‘as for my cousins, many of them go to school’
f dat wan, a g t am ‘if it’s that thing, I have it’
if na klinik-d m, wi g t am ‘as for clinics, we have them’
if na man pikin, wi se . . . ‘if the child (or: it) is a boy, then we say . . .’
Within CamPE, further varietal differentiation seems possible on the basis of the in-
troductory elements as if na is, according to informants, probably more common among
Francophone speakers. For a comparison, cf. the following sentences taken from Huber
(GhaPE) and Faraclas (NigPE):
kliniks, wi g t am nau ‘as for clinics, we have them now’ (Huber 1999: 251)
gari, im s l f mak t ‘as for the garri, (s)he sold it in the market’ (Faraclas 1996: 125)
Intensifiers and emphasizers. We understand such elements to emphasize the sentence or

intensify the meaning of a syntactic unit, in certain contexts similar to what can be achieved
by grading adverbs in relation to adjectives. A prominent non-regional emphasizer that
occurs in all three forms of WAPE is the low-tone particle o.21 It occurs sentence-finally,
is used in both affirmation and negation, and involves the speaker’s emotions. Its scope of
emphasis is the whole sentence:
GhaPE no bi smɔ tin o ‘that was no trifle’ (Huber: 250)

NigPE mek una kɔm o ‘Help, please’ (Elugbe and Omamor: 106)
CamPE a no fit o ‘I absolutely can’t do it’
A particle roughly equivalent to o is the CamPE ὲ, which is not found in GhaPE and
NigPE. Its syntactic use does not differ from o. The modal meaning expressed can be
rendered with ‘must (realize)’ (obligation):
luk am ὲ ‘you must realize this’

don ple wit mi ὲ ‘you mustn’t play with me’

Although Elugbe and Omamor (1991: 106) state that “an entire clause cannot be em-
phasized with na” in NigPE, we do have examples from two speakers:
na i na titʃa na ‘as for him, he is a teacher, surely’
de n k d a na ‘they even knocked at the door’
We also have such examples for CamPE, where it has long been an established feature in
declarative sentences and as a question tag:
na ma pikin dis na ‘this is my child, of course’
wuna g t p p f ji na ‘you people have hot pepper here, don’t you?; you
people surely have hot pepper here’
We can even report na as a recent innovation of Cameroon English, functioning as a

question tag: You people have small Motorolas over there, na? ‘. . ., don’t you?’ This is
another instance of the strong mutual influence of WAPE and WAE forms.
As for intensifiers (grading elements), the one that is shared by all WAPE speakers is tu
mɔ tʃ, as in:
i s fa tu m t ‘(s)he was suffering very much’
Besides, GhaPE has the (temporal) intensifier te: (Huber, 1999: 250):
wi kɔlεkt am te:, wi no dai ‘we collected it for a long time, (and) we did not die’22
It has two functions, namely to express ‘for so long; for a long time’ and ‘until’. In
CamPE, sote: is used in the same functions. One of the two, i.e. qualifying temporal
adverbials, can be found in:
sote: f tri m nt ‘for three long months; for a whole three months’
CamPE also has it as a common expression of intensity involving the speaker’s emotion.
In this function, it occurs in sentence-final position and can be understood to both modify
and grade the verbal predicate. Its second syllable is (sometimes excessively) lengthened
and spoken with a level tone:
a s fa sote:: ‘I was suffering so terribly’

a waka sote:: ‘I was walking so much’
In NigPE we find sete: and sote: as lexical variants, of which sete: is more commonly used.
They are assigned to the same functions as GhaPE’s te:; cf. the following examples
a wet fɔ ju sete: hɔngri wan kil mi ‘I waited for you for so long that I almost died of hunger’
ma hɔsban bit mi sete: a wan dai ‘My husband beat me until I nearly died’
2.3. Means determining temporal and causal-temporal relations

In this grammatical field, more than in others, the typical structural organization of a
WAPE sentence becomes evident: its strong analytic character. Here differences between
WAPE and WAE come out very strongly. This does not only relate to the surface structure

at which functional elements occur and how they occur. It is also true of the specific content
structure of verb phrases, because the markers (auxiliaries) discussed below not only express
(temporal, etc.) functions but often intertwine with semantic analyticity. Concerning the
latter aspect, the auxiliaries go and kɔm are good illustrations. In a number of cases, the verb
phrases of which they are a part show a certain resemblance to serial verb constructions.
The auxiliary go. It is usually described as the future tense marker of WAPE. Our data
and the discussion in the literature (Huber, 1999: 80; Elugbe and Omamor 1991: 99–100;
de Féral, 1989: 119) show that it occurs in GhaPE, NigPE, and CamPE. For this major
function of go, de Féral gives the following example:
tumɔro, a go bai am ‘tomorrow, I’ll buy it’
Sometimes, it expresses ‘futurity’ in a wider sense, i.e., it is not only a ‘pure future’ auxiliary
but may also imply intention and the will to realize the intention; cf.
a go tεl ju sɔm fain tɔri ‘I’m going to tell you a nice story’ (de Féral: 119)
The semantically analytic character of the whole verb phrase is shown by our CamPE
examples
de go fain kokojam ‘they go and buy (go to buy) cocoyam(s)’ (with no future-time
reference)
ju go f s put am fɔ wɔta ‘you start by putting it into water’ (habit; go refers to the initial part
of the “sequenced” action)
For a discussion of the ‘sequencing’ or ‘successive’ dimension in the meaning of the verb
phrase, see the description of kɔm below.
Retrospective dɔn. The retrospective auxiliary dɔ n is often called aspect marker. To
our understanding, it instead establishes a cause–effect relation, similar to English perfect
forms, in that it expresses the speaker’s interest in the effect (result) brought about by a
cause (event). Starting from the speaker’s interest in or orientation to the result, he/she
explains it by relating it back to the event.23 Like some other features, the marker dɔ n,
as in a dɔ n fɔ g t ‘I have forgotten (this)’ or, functionally, ‘no knowledge any more’, is
absent in GhaPE, while it is quite frequent in NigPE and CamPE (cf. Huber, 1999: 80, 126,
161–2). Njeuma (1995: 61–4) represents dɔ n as ‘dong’ for both NigPE and CamPE. We
can confirm the variant dɔŋ as the typical CamPE form, but we have not encountered it in
the NigPE part of our corpus.
The past tense marker bin. The form bin is here used as a kind of archi-auxiliary that,
through its orthography, also forms a link to the English etymon been. In actual WAPE
speech, it may be spoken as bin (notably in educated varieties) or as bı̃ (nasalized, mostly
but not necessarily with loss of final /n/ – the predominant realisation in mesolectal and
basilectal NigPE) or as bi (very common in CamPE and southeastern NigPE). The existence
of the anterior marker bin (or of any anterior marker) can be ruled out for GhaPE (see Huber,
1999: 218), where past reference is often left unmarked in the verb phrase. The status
of bin at least in NigPE is somewhat doubtful. Faraclas (1996: 196–7) is actually more

cautious than one might gather from Huber’s (1999: 218) account of the relevant passages.
Faraclas (1996: 196) explains that “the past tense marker bin may be used with stative
verbs to show past tense” (whereas “nonstative verbs are past tense by default”), and that
“pluperfect or past anterior tense/sequence can be signaled by the use of bin with nonstative
verbs or by the combined use of the completive auxiliary don and either bin or the realis
auxiliary kom”. By no means is bin here “described as the prototypical anterior or past
marker” (Huber, 1999: 218n); the primary option is the unmarked verb, as in GhaPE. Yet
Huber is right in claiming that bin is extremely marginal in NigPE (and in pointing out that
Elugbe and Omamor (1991: 99–102) do not include bin in their list of TMA markers). From
our observation, this does not hold true for CamPE. We observed a number of occurrences
of bin in our interviews with Anglophone CamPE speaker; de Féral (1989: 118–19) and
Njeuma (1995: 54–6) also make note of the existence of the tense marker bin in CamPE.
Cf. our example:
a bi si i j stade ‘I saw her/him yesterday’
Njeuma draws attention to a slight difference between NigPE and CamPE with respect
to the pronunciation of bin, which is bin in NigPE but bi in CamPE, a feature that we can
absolutely confirm. De Féral lists both forms, yet we have only encountered bi. Examples
for the use of the past tense marker bi also include:
w n a bi de bak hom, a no bi di wɔk ‘when I was back home, I was not working’ (Njeuma
1995: 55)
Both Faraclas (1996: 197) and Njeuma (1995: 62–3) make note of a differentiation in past
tense marking. According to Faraclas (1996: 197), for non-stative verbs, pluperfect can be
signalled by the combination of a main verb with bin, as in:
a bin go hɔs ‘I had gone home’
a bin tʃɔp yam ‘I had eaten yams’
Though we have not come across structurally more complex forms in our own data, Njeuma
(1995: 62–3) as well as Faraclas (1996: 197) mention the combination of d n and bin as a
signal to express a more remote past or pre-past:
dis wi bi dɔʃ tʃɔp di tʃɔp ‘we had eaten the food (before)’ (CamPE, Njeuma:
62).
a bin dɔn laik njam befɔ ju kɔm tʃɔp-am ‘I had liked yams before you first ate them’ (NigPE,
Faraclas, 1996: 197)
The auxiliary kɔm/kɔn/kam. GhaPE and NigPE have one feature in common that is not
extensively described for CamPE, namely the kom/kon (NigPE) or kam (GhaPE) auxiliary,
forms which have the same function but differ according to the phonetic rule outlined
below. For NigPE, Tagliamonte (2000: 354) states that “kom is perhaps the most productive
and widespread tense/aspect feature of the NPE [=Nigerian Pidgin English] data under
consideration”.24 While the grammatical functions seem to be varied (see e.g. Njeuma 1995:
75–7), Huber’s (1999: 220) and Njeuma’s (1995: 77) explanation that it “signals successive
events in narrative” (Huber) or “is indicative of the sequencing of events” (Njeuma) is
convincing. For NigPE, cf. our example:
i k n kari mi moto ‘he came and then took me (away) in his car’

With its origin in the English come, of which it has kept the original function, Nigerian
and Ghanaian kɔ m/kam has been influenced by substratum languages and has undergone
a process of functional reinterpretation. Thereby it has adopted new functions, in which
it is now grammaticalized. Yet is not clear how far NigPE has gone in this process; from
Tagliamonte’s data and interpretation we may deduce that the grammaticalization process
has happened only recently.25 The status of this word in CamPE is not fully defined. Njeuma
argues that kɔ m occurs as kaŋ in CamPE, yet admits that the ratio of occurrence is 4 to 1
in favour of NigPE. In the material obtained from our CamPE informants, we find kam in
examples of the same type as in NigPE; cf. e.g.
de kam tif mai dɔk ‘they came and stole my dog’

polis, de kam kari i j stade ‘the police, they took him away yesterday’
With such examples – especially containing certain context elements such as past-time
adverbials – we can confirm Tagliamonte in that, apart from the ‘sequencing’ notion
it evokes, kɔm/kɔn/kam is also used for past-time events. It differs from the other two,
bin and the unmarked verb (with past-time reference), because it highlights the initial
phase of the action. Our examples, however, seem to suggest that kɔm/kɔn/kam is not a
genuine formal marker, like the grammatical morpheme -ed in English, of anteriority;
rather, it could be considered a linguistic expression of vividness (in conversation). Thus
it is related to (English) “dramatic present”, which implies that it is temporally neutral. In
such cases, the reference to the past is then established by the (wider) linguistic context
and the communicative situation.
The rapid increase of kɔm/kɔn/kam may explain the low productivity of bin in NigPE and
especially GhaPE. The above-mentioned numerical disparity between NigPE and CamPE
may be due to the fact that kɔm has become a feature of CamPE only recently. As informants
have told us, its frequency is higher in certain areas, such as the Mamfe Subdivision in
the South West Province near Nigeria’s Cross River State and the Bakassi area, where
there is much contact with NigPE speakers. For CamPE in general, Ayafor (2004: 922),
however, states that “in narrations, once the time of the story has been established, tense
markers can be dropped”. Arguably more frequent than kɔm in NigPE is the form kɔn,
which is derived from kɔ m through phonetic assimilation of /m/ to [n], a prominent feature
of Nigerian (Pidgin) English. kɔ n (e.g. i kɔ n kari am) is so frequent that it can be said to
have quasi-lexical status in NigPE. Analogously, we have found the form kan in our GhaPE
data, but only with one speaker.
2.4. Means indicating place and direction: the preposition na and its equivalents
Identical in form with elements mentioned under 2.2, though absolutely different in word
class membership and function, the preposition na is recorded for pidgins and closely
related forms along the West African coast. It is usually attributed locative meaning, but
actually serves a wider range of functions (cf. also Faraclas below for the synonymous for).
In our material, we have only occasionally observed it as a locative preposition in NigPE,
as in:
i go na di mitin ‘he went to the meeting’

However, the general locative preposition in both NigPE and CamPE is for. Faraclas (1996)
does not make note of na as a preposition at all; as he writes, “there is one general preposition
fòr in Nigerian Pidgin which can be used to express a wide range of spatial, temporal, role
and other relationships” (Faraclas, 1996: 60). It is questionable if the examples de Féral
(1989: 81–2) cites of a locative use of na in CamPE really reflect such a use:
h d ɔfis, na fɔ Yaoundé ‘the head office, (it) is in Yaoundé’
Pa Haman, na ɔda said de ‘Pa Herman, (he) lives on the other side, over there’
ɔl gut ti fɔ fish, na fɔ ji h t ‘everything that is good in the fish, is in its head’
In these examples, na could be interpreted as a copula or even as a focus marker (cf.

section 2.2). In the first and third example, na is accompanied by f , which is the actual
locative preposition, and in the second one, a locative sense is established by the deictic
de. For GhaPE, Huber (1999: 211–13) also lists f only.
3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROMINENT PHONOLOGICAL AND GRAMMATICAL

WAPE MARKERS
Table 1 summarizes what is outlined in sections 1 and 2. We have only selected the most
relevant features with distinctive character whose occurrence is clearly verified. Therefore,
they can be regarded as markers. Their geographical occurrence is indicated in the table.
Table 1. Distinctive features and their occurrences in the varieties of WAPE

Feature GhanPE NigPE CamPE
RP [ ], [a] [] []
RP /:/ [ ], more seldom [ ] [ ], [a], [ ] 25 [ ], [ ], seldom [a]
<-er>-suffixes with plural -s [ s] [as] [as]
na as copula no yes yes
na: focus marker/rhematizer no yes yes
na as intensifier no yes yes
d εm as postpos. plural marker no yes yes
d n as retrospective marker no yes yes (dɔŋ)
bin as past tense marker no yes yes (bi )
k m: auxiliary and sequencer kam/kan k m/k n kam, seldom k m
ji: marked 3rd pers. sg. pron. no no yes
una as 2nd pers. pl. pronoun no yes yes (wuna)
mi as (unmarked) subj. pron. no yes no
mi as possessive pronoun no yes no
na as locative preposition no occasional rare (no example)
4. LEXICAL FEATURES
As Huber (1999: 169) rightly says, every English word has the potential to become a
lexical item in pidgin. Therefore, the lexical features specific to the national varieties of
English may potentially occur in the respective varieties of WAPE, and inversely, WAPE

lexemes can enter a national WAE vocabulary or WAE generally. Also, there has always
been borrowing from indigenous West African languages into WAPE (varieties). As the
lexicon of WAPE is, as a consequence, a microcosm of its own, and as fluctuation in
geographical distribution and steady influx of new expressions is a very common phe-
nomenon, we consider this paper to have subsidiary character only. Nevertheless, we need
to underline that a stock of WAPE lexical units is shared by all three variants in question.
This is why such words as palava ‘trouble, argument’, sabi ‘know, understand’ or ashawo
‘prostitute, flirt’ are used by all WAPE speakers. We concentrate only on a few prominent
examples of the national WAPE forms.
NigPE: ikebe ‘buttocks’, inja ga equivalent to CamPE nja ga ‘to put on a show’, padiman
‘friend’, oga ‘boss’, siga ‘cigarette’, z mbi ‘naı̈ve person’
CamPE: aso ‘common customer and friend’, bɔ k ‘(female) prostitute’, diba ‘buttocks’ (youth talk),
kɔ mbi ‘friend’, massa ‘boss’, mimbo ‘drink; raffia palm wine’, salut ‘greeting when
meeting some other person’, tʃakara ‘unorganized; messy; not focused’
GhaPE: ab ski ‘short trousers’, k t ‘reach, obtain, get (in trouble), have’ (Huber 1999: 83), bula
‘penis’, dɔ n ‘naı̈ve or ignorant person’, t ao ‘plenty, a lot’, fili fili ‘live, to witness
something with one’s own eyes’, fila ‘(new) information’, tu-tu ‘prostitute’, r d-r d
‘fried ripe plantain’, koti ‘police’, dot ‘cigarette’27
5. CONCLUSION
Our study has aimed to give a comprehensive overview of the features that distinguish
the national varieties of WAPE from each other, and, with this particular comparative scope,
is the first of its kind. We have also considered, with respect to phonology and lexis, the
relation of these varieties to the respective standard form of English.
As expected, the study shows that WAPE and WAE are language varieties which are
not independent of each other. This is especially true in the light of certain speaker-related
sociolinguistic parameters such as education, linguistic competence and functional load.
Typically, there is a rather strong correlation between these linguistic entities in WAPE on
the one hand and WAE on the other in the fields of phonology and lexis. It is mainly in the
domains of grammar, where there are significant differences in syntactic structure, and in
verb morphology, where WAPE exhibits a considerably stronger tendency towards struc-
tural analyticity. Still, given the fact that grammatical elements of WAPE can frequently be
found in WAE, as, for example, the use of f (cf. for) as locative/directional preposition,
the strong correlation between linguistic entities in WAPE and WAE could be seen as an
indication of a shift towards convergence of pidginized/creolized and standard forms of
English in West Africa.
Within WAPE, a number of features set GhaPE clearly apart from NigPE and CamPE,
possibly due to the specific GhaPE geographical distribution and its low functional load
and low social prestige. This is also confirmed by Huber (2004b: 866). Furthermore, NigPE
and CamPE have peculiar markers themselves which can be considered exclusive to the
respective variety. There are also indications that, at least regarding particular features,
CamPE is less varied than NigPE. This may be due to the outstanding functional impor-
tance of CamPE, which integrates Anglophones, all with minority native languages, in

one geographical unity (the North West and South West Provinces). Its relative structural
homogeneity can also be found in prosodic features (e.g. rhythm), which, in addition, are
clearly different from those of Cameroon English. Prosody as well as discourse structures
and elements are fields where substantial research is still needed.28
Moreover, the differences we pointed out attest to the identifiability of the varieties
in question, and in that sense our findings are a contribution to the ongoing debate on
language analysis and the possibility of variety identification (see Simo Bobda, Wolf, and
Peter 1999; and the collection of articles edited by Eades and Arends, 2004). Nevertheless,
there is evidence enough to state that the varieties are more or less intelligible, a minimum
criterion for regarding them as varieties of the same language. This evidence can be taken
as an argument for the interrelatedness of the varieties of WAPE on historical grounds and
also for present-day contact between these varieties, particularly NigPE and CamPE.
NOTES
1. Note that the term Kamtok seems to be an invention of (non-Cameroonian) linguists; in Cameroon itself, nobody
refers to pidgin as Kamtok (cf. Simo Bobda and Wolf, 2003). Some linguists, though, obviously for reasons of brevity,
continue to use it (e.g. Ayafor and Menang).
2. In Baker and Huber (2001), a general survey of features and their first attestations is presented for Atlantic and Pacific
English-related contact languages without differentiating between WAPE varieties.
3. We especially thank Herbert Igboanusi, Samuel Atechi, and Charles Marfo for their insight.
4. These features are described by comparing the articulation in question with the referential norm of Received Pronun-
ciation (RP) (the accent associated with educated British English).
5. While Efik and Ibibio users of English are quite consistent in using the rule, in speakers with Igbo as the mother
tongue one may also sometimes find [ ] in church.
6. The pronunciation [ s] for <-er>-endings can also be occasionally observed in English of speech-conscious speakers
of Nigerian English and Cameroon English (see Simo Bobda, 1995: 250).
7. Though the territory of Southern Cameroons, as the Anglophone part of today’s Cameroon was called, was supposed
to be administered separately by the British first under a League of Nations mandate and later under UN Trusteeship,
it was de facto administered as part of their colony Nigeria (see Wolf, 2001: 64–126).
8. In his chart of diagnostic features, Huber (1999: 81) also indicates the absence of preposed d m as a plural marker in
GhaPE, but does not explicate this further elsewhere in his book.
9. We have chosen a phonographic orthography that has proved to be useful in the description of Krio, GhaPE (Huber)
and West African languages, such as Twi (Akan). Consequently, several other forms of orthography used by other
linguists (e.g. Faraclas and Elugbe and Omamor) have been converted to ours.
10. Henceforth, the source of the examples given, if not ours, will be indicated in a shorter form by referring to author(s)
and page only. Where Huber (1999), Faraclas (1996), Njeuma (1995) and Elugbe and Omamor (1991) provided the
material, we have taken over the translation as well; in all other cases it is ours.
11. We were unable to obtain Amoako’s unpublished PhD dissertation ourselves and have to rely on Huber (1999) here.
12. This is why we use this spelling as an “archigraphemic” (non-national) form for easier reference and also adopt the
policy with regard to similar cases of morphonological variation, such as unaand wuna.
13. Note that the variants of the 1st person plural object pronoun s and as, as listed in Huber (1999: 199), attest to the
differences in the phonetic system of GhaPE vis-à-vis the other varieties (see above), rather than to differences in the
grammatical system.
14. It is not clear from de Féral’s explanation if there is a difference in the forms used by Anglophone speakers and
Francophone speakers of CamPE.
15. Its existence in NigPE is, however, acknowledged by Barbag-Stoll (1983: 72).
16. For us, focus is the part of a sentence that carries the highest degree of CV. Thus, it may be one of several rhematic
elements, but is definitely the most prominent one.
17. Note that the homophonous preposition is described in a different grammatical field (see 2.4).
18. We believe that na originates from English now. This becomes evident when one investigates the meanings of now in
spoken colloquial native English and compares it with na.
19. Here we have changed Elugbe and Omamor’s ‘even this your red car’ to a more idiomatic equivalent.
20. The term ‘topicalization’ is also ambiguous, as grammarians use it differently. For e.g. Carls (1996: 121), it refers “to
the process by which the theme-rheme structure of a sentence is developed as well as to the theme-rheme structure
itself”.
21. According to Holm (1988: 211–12), it is a common feature of many Atlantic pidgins and creoles.

22. Owing to the functional character of the intensifier we suggest a slightly different translation: ‘we were collecting it
for such a long time . . .’.
23. Aspect (differentiation) has to do with the view(s) the speaker takes of an event or its segments and their expression
in different verb forms. Here we follow Lucko (1995: 172–4), who developed a concept of the corresponding English
verbal category.
24. Tagliamonte describes the scope of his study as the “past temporal reference sector”.
25. We would like to draw attention to the fact that in native forms of Standard English the verb come may occur in a
similar way, as in come meet my family, come stay and have lunch with us, come see us in LA, come join the party. This
particular structural pattern coincides with the analytic character of the underlying indigenous languages of WAPE,
which may have enforced the prominence of this grammatical feature of WAPE.
26. Speakers from the southwestern part of Nigeria tend to have more /a/ than / /, while it is the other way around with
speakers from the southeast.
27. Some of these lexemes and definitions were provided by Charles Marfo and cross-checked by us for their occurrence
in the other varieties; also see “Unofficial Ghanaian Dictionary” and Dako (2001; 2003).
28. For a recent study on the prosody of Cameroon English, see Talla Sando Ouafeu (2006).
REFERENCES
African Studies Center (n.d.) Krio/Pidgin (Cluster) language page. Michigan State University.
http://www.isp.msu.edu/AfrLang/Krio root.html
Ayafor, Miriam (1996) An orthography for Kamtok. English Today, 12(4), 53–7.
Ayafor, Miriam (2004) Cameroon Pidgin English (Kamtok): morphology and syntax. In Kortman et al. (2004: 909–28).
Baker, Philip and Huber, Magnus (2001) Atlantic, Pacific, and world-wide features in English-lexicon contact languages.
English World-Wide, 22(2), 157–208.
Barbag-Stoll, Anna (1983) Social and Linguistic History of Nigerian Pidgin English as Spoken by the Yoruba with Special
Reference to the English-derived Lexicon. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.
Berry, Jack (1971) Pidgins and creoles in Africa. In Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa [Current Trends in Linguistics
VII]. Edited by T. A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 510–36.
Breitborde, Lawrence B. (1998) Speaking and Social Identity: English in the Lives of Urban Africans. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Carls, Uwe (1996) The function of role types in unmarked theme-rheme structures. In Anglistentag 1995 Greifswald:
Proceedings. Edited by Jürgen Klein and Dirk Vanderbeke. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 121–32.
Dako, Kari (2001) Ghanaianisms: towards a semantic and a formal classification. English World-Wide, 22, pp. 23–53.
Dako, Kari (2003) Ghanaianisms: A Glossary. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.
de Féral, Carole (1989) Pidgin-English du Cameroun: Description Linguistique et Sociolinguistique. Paris:
Peeters/SELAF.
Eades, Diana and Arends, Jacques (eds.) (2004) Special section: language analysis and determination of nationality.
International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11(2).
Elugbe, Ben (2004) Nigerian Pidgin English: phonology. In Schneider et al. (2004: 831–41).
Elugbe, Ben O. and Omamor, Augusta Ph. (1991) Nigerian Pidgin: Background and Prospect. Ibadan: Heinemann
Educational Books Nigeria.
Eze, Smart N. (1980) Nigerian Pidgin English Sentence Complexity. Vienna: Afro-Pub (University of Vienna).
Faraclas, Nicholas (1991) The pronoun system in Nigerian Pidgin: a preliminary study. In English around the World:
Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Edited by Jenny Cheshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 509–18.
Faraclas, Nicholas (1996) Nigerian Pidgin. London: Routledge.
Faraclas, Nicholas (2004) Nigerian Pidgin English: morphology and syntax. In Kortmann et al. (2004: 829–53).
Gramley, Stephan and Pätzold, Kurt Michael (2003) A Survey of Modern English. London: Routledge.
Holm, John (1988) Pidgins and Creoles. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holm, John (1989) Pidgins and Creoles. Vol. 2: Reference Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holm, John (2000) An Introduction to Pidgins and Creoles [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Huber, Magnus (1999) Ghanaian Pidgin English in Its West African Context: A Sociohistorical and Structural Analysis.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Huber, Magnus (2004a) Ghanaian Pidgin English: phonology. In Schneider et al. (2004: 867–78).
Huber, Magnus (2004b) Ghanaian Pidgin English: morphology and syntax. In Kortmann et al. (2004: 867–78).
Kortmann, Bernd, Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend, Schneider, Edgar W. and Upton, Clive (eds.) (2004) A Handbook of
Varieties of English. Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lucko, Peter (1995) Between aspect, actionality and modality. In Anglistentag 1994 Graz: Proceedings. Edited by Wolf-
gang Riehle and Hugo Keiper. Tübingen: Niemeyer. pp. 171–82.
Mafeni, Bernard (1971) Nigerian Pidgin. In The English Language in West Africa [English Language Series]. Edited by
John Spencer. London: Longman, pp. 95–112.

Mann, Charles C. (1993) Polysemic functionality of prepositions in pidgins and creoles: The case of ‘f o’ in Anglo-Nigerian
˙
Pidgin. In Atlantic Meets Pacific: A Global View of Pidginization and Creolization (Selected Papers from the Society
for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics). Edited by Francis Byrne and John Holm. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 57–67.
Mbassi-Manga, Francis (1973) English in Cameroon: a study in historical contacts, pattern of usage and current trends.
PhD thesis, University of Leeds.
Menang, Thaddeus (2004) Cameroon Pidgin English (Kamtok): phonology. In Schneider et al. (2004: 903–17).
Njeuma, Bernadette J. (1995) Structural similarities between Sierra Leonean Krio and two West African Anglophone
Pidgins: a case for common origin. PhD thesis, University of South Carolina.
Peter, Lothar and Wolf, Hans-Georg (2003) Aku in the Gambia: terminological problems, functional distribution and
popular attitude. In Studies in African Varieties of English. Edited by Peter Lucko, Lothar Peter and Hans-Georg Wolf.
Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang, pp. 119–27.
Schneider, Edgar W., Burridge, Kate, Kortmann, Bernd, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton, Clive (eds.) (2004) A Handbook of
Varieties of English. Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schröder, Anne (2003a) Status, Functions, and Prospects of Pidgin English: An Empirical Approach to Language Dy-
namics in Cameroon. Tübingen: Narr.
Schröder, Anne (2003b) Aspect in Cameroon Pidgin English. In Studies in African Varieties of English. Edited by Peter
Lucko, Lothar Peter and Hans-Georg Wolf. Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang, pp. 83–100.
Simo Bobda, Augustin (1995) The phonologies of Nigerian English and Cameroon English. In New Englishes:
A West African Perspective. Edited by Ayo Bamgbose, Ayo Banyo and Andrew Thomas. Ibadan: Mosuro,
˙
pp. 248–68.
Simo Bobda, Augustin (2000a) Comparing some phonological features across African accents of English. English Studies,
81(3), 249–66.
Simo Bobda, Augustin (2000b) English pronunciation in sub-Saharan Africa as illustrated by the NURSE vowel. English
Today, 16(4), 41–8.
Simo Bobda, Augustin (2000c) The uniqueness of Ghanaian English pronunciation in West Africa. Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences, 30(2), 123–36.
Simo Bobda, Augustin (2003) The formation of regional and national features in African English pronunciation: an
exploration of some non-interference factors. English World-Wide, 24(1), 17–42.
Simo Bobda, Augustin and Wolf, Hans-Georg (2003) Pidgin English in Cameroon in the new millennium. In Studies in
African Varieties of English. Edited by Peter Lucko, Lothar Peter and Hans-Georg Wolf. Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang, pp.
101–17.
Simo Bobda, Augustin, Wolf, Hans-Georg and Peter, Lothar (1999) Identifying regional and national origin of English-
speaking Africans seeking asylum in Germany. Forensic Linguistics, 6(2), 300–19.
Singler, John (1997) The configuration of Liberia’s Englishes. World Englishes, 16(2), 205–31.
Tagliamonte, Sali, Poplack, Shana and Eze, Ejike (1997) Plural marking patterns in Nigerian Pidgin English. Journal of
Pidgin and Creole Languages 12, 103–29.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2000) The story of kom in Nigerian Pidgin English. In Language Change and Language Contact
in Pidgins and Creoles (Creole Language Library 21). Edited by John McWhorther. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.
353–82.
Talla Sando Ouafeu, Yves (2006) Intonational Meaning in Cameroon English Discourse: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.
Göttingen: Cuvillier.
Todd, Loreto (1990) Pidgins and Creoles. London: Routledge.
Unofficial Ghanaian Dictionary, at: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/ghana/gh dict.html
Wolf, Hans-Georg (2001) English in Cameroon (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 85). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Wolf, Hans-Georg and Igboanusi, Herbert (2003) A preliminary comparison of some lexical items in Nigerian English
and Cameroon English. In Studies in African Varieties of English. Edited by Peter Lucko, Lothar Peter and Hans-Georg
Wolf. Frankfurt-am-Main: Lang, pp. 69–82.
(Received 8 December 2005.)


A Comparison of The Varieties of West African Pidgin English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Comparison of The Varieties of West African Pidgin English

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparison of The Varieties of West African Pidgin English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Englishes, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 3–21, 2007.

A comparison of the varieties of West African Pidgin English

LOTHAR PETER∗ and HANS-GEORG WOLF∗∗

SOME NOTES ON METHOD AND DATA

Realization of <er>-endings with the plural form -s

2.1. Reference to phenomena established by noun phrases / noun determination

di pikin-d m ‘the children’

and, from CamPE,

dat wuman we i bin g t dat tu pikin-d m

a ste fɔ di pipul-d m ‘I stayed with these people’

In such a context, mi is a quasi-topicalizer as well (cf. section 2.2). Another way of

mi go fɔ praimari skul ‘I went to (a) primary school’

mi trazis blu ‘my trousers were blue’

Thus, NigPE is further differentiated from GhaPE and CamPE.

wi pikin de fɔ klas s v n ‘our child is in the seventh form’

The occurrence of awa in Cameroon may be due to processes similar to decreolization

2.2. Means determining the information structure

na di kasava wi plant ‘it was cassava (that) we planted/were planting’

(2) as a focus marker:16

i bi na grup we pipul d ɔin ‘it is a group that people joined’

(3) as a copula (be):

mi papa na fama ‘my father is a farmer’

de n k d a na ‘they even knocked/were knocking at the door’

i no go skul s f (CamPE) (s)he didn’t even go to school’

As can be seen in the examples given, s f is principally post-positional to its focalized

f ma said, we ai k m t wi k l am ‘ekwa’ ‘as for my people/tribe, where I come from,

Intensifiers and emphasizers. We understand such elements to emphasize the sentence or

GhaPE no bi smɔ tin o ‘that was no trifle’ (Huber: 250)

luk am ὲ ‘you must realize this’

We can even report na as a recent innovation of Cameroon English, functioning as a

a s fa sote:: ‘I was suffering so terribly’

2.3. Means determining temporal and causal-temporal relations

tumɔro, a go bai am ‘tomorrow, I’ll buy it’

de kam tif mai dɔk ‘they came and stole my dog’

i go na di mitin ‘he went to the meeting’

In these examples, na could be interpreted as a copula or even as a focus marker (cf.

3. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROMINENT PHONOLOGICAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Table 1. Distinctive features and their occurrences in the varieties of WAPE

(Received 8 December 2005.)

You might also like