See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369694132

LANGUAGE USE: THE PRECISION OF SPEECH AND OUR STYLE OF SPEAKING

FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Article · April 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 71

1 author:

Sebastine Nwankwo
Federal University of Technology Owerri
7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sebastine Nwankwo on 01 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LANGUAGE USE: THE PRECISION OF SPEECH AND OUR STYLE OF SPEAKING FOR THE ENHANCEMENT
OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
By
CYNTHIA ADAEZE ONUEGWUNWOKE, PhD
SCHOOL OF GENERAL STUDIES,
IMO STATE POLYTECHNIC, UMUAGWO.08037675151
AND
KELVIN UGORJI ONYEWUCHI
SCHOOL OF GENERAL STUDIES, IMO STATE POLYTECHNIC UMUAGWO.
08037256296
AND
SEBATINE CHIKA NWANKWO
SCHOOL OF GENERAL STUDIES, IMO STATE POLYTECHNIC, UMUAGWO.
08063938856

Abstract
It is good to note that clarity is not the only goal of any language because it is possible to be perfectly clear
and still offend others. In addition, the distinctive manner of expression of thoughts in spoken words has a
lot to do with style of speaking and precision of speech. Therefore, this paper stresses that style of speaking
and precision of speech are like hallmarks to effective communication. It is also recommends that one
characteristic of speech for the enhancement of national development for a multifarious country like Nigeria
is that participants speaking style needs to be clear and precise. However, the paper warns that, failure to
use language with care and caution it deserves can lead to problems. Sometimes, these problems are
relatively minor, but in other cases, they can be disastrous to national development. Thus, the data for this
paper was collected through personal observation from an infinite population and was analysed using the
ethnographic framework of SPEAKING by Dell Hathaway Hymes, 1974 and “I” language.

Introduction
One characteristic of language is the use of language for communication which is limited by bounds of social
interaction and the depth of human creative ability. Incidentally, this one unique characteristic of language
use can be seen in interpersonal and inter-group cooperation. This therefore proves that language is part and
parcel of the social man. In consonance with the above assertions, Onuegwunwoke & Olekaibe (2016,p.11)
note that, “….through the process of communication, the actual role of language is appreciated, especially
among human and other various activities. Thus, this role has a lot to do with national unity and integration.”
Of course, we can only talk of national development in a multilingual and multifarious country like Nigeria
if there is national unity and integration.
In addition, there are many goals of language. Nwadike (2008,p.13) observes that; “Language is the key to
the heart of the people”. Okoro & Okereke (2016,p.119) explain that:
Language is so important to man that anyone without a capacity for language use is at best in a
partial existence. It is the instrument of acculturation in the sense that it is through the use of language that
man identifies with his group, identifies himself, explores his environment, records events, expresses his
though, feelings and needs. Language is also the index of man’s humanity and the instrument of his
development and growth.
However, it is good to note that for success to be achieved in any discourse act, clarity is not the only goals
of language. This is so because it is very possible to be perfectly clear and still offend others.
By definition, the word precision is marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail. It also
means being precise and perfectly consistent with words to avoid confusion during any discourse act. In
addition, precise and thoughtful communication supports both correctness and clarity. It is usually good for
any individual to strive for clarity, simplicity, and precision in both speech and writing. Bollinger (1975,p.620)
adds that:
Avoiding such trouble in language calls for more than an acquaintance with the most
obvious meanings of words. It demands a vast and deep familiarity with the inferences as well as the
references, with the hovering meanings as well as the central ones, with what the words were as well as with
what they are, with what they might be for others as well as with what they are for us-and with their potential
for evocation in the content in which we use them…
Theoretically and practically, to enhance national development in our country Nigeria, our style of speaking
needs to be clear and precise. It is very important to get our ideas clearly and efficiently during
communication. Communication as we all know is one of the bonds that can bring a nation like Nigeria
together and also respects the multiplicity of perspectives that is essential to the search for truth
and meaning. Every nation consists of individuals with diverse needs both bond together by a common
dream. Therefore, this paper explores our style of speaking so as to help improve our precision of speech
and our emotional climate for harmonious relationship; all geared towards national development.
There are diverse meanings of word ‘speech’, but this paper is interested in speech as a means of
communication or the expression of thoughts in spoken words . In wardhaugh’s (2010,p.253) parlance:
Speech is used in different ways among different groups of people. As we will see, each group
has its own norms of linguistic behaviour. A particular group may not encourage talking for the sake of
talking, and members of such group may appear to be quite taciturn to outsiders who relish talk, or they
may feel overwhelmed by the demands made on them if those insist on talking. In contrast, in other group
talk may be encouraged to the extent that it may even appear to be quite disorderly to an observer who has
internalized a different set of ‘rules’ for the conduct of talk.
Thus, the distinctive manner of expression of thoughts in spoken words has a lot to do with style of speaking.
Style of speaking and precision of speech are like hallmarks of effective communication. They also aid clarity
in any given discourse situation.
Style can be described as the use of correct expression in an appropriate manner in any discourse situation.
Enkvist (1964,p.19) analyses the word style under four stages:
-as a set of individual characteristics,
-a set of collective characteristics,
-as deviations from a norm,
-as those linguistic entities that are suitable in terms of wider spans of text than sentences, etc.
Bolinger (1975,p.600-1) claims that:
Style involves a choice of form without a change of message… It includes the motives for the
choice and its effects. Often these are impossible to distinguish from the content. If a writer wants to convey
a supernatural presence and chooses words with phones thematic supernatural overtones rather synonyms
without them, has he made a stylistic choice or a semantic one? If all differences in form are correlated with
differences in meaning, then the style of a piece of writing is simply its meaning. The work may stand out
because of its meaning, or the author may be exceptionally skilled in finding the right words for his meaning
and will take pleasure in his art, but the wrong choices would have meant something less-they would not
have conveyed the meaning. Style and meaning are inseparable.
When discussing language use, we must bear in mind that language is a symbolic activity that is governed
by syntactic, semantic and regulative rules. This is why Mey (2006,p.196)warns that:

when discussing the metapragmatic conditions of language use, we should remind ourselves
that they reflect not simply the world as it is, biologically or ontologically, but rather the world as we have
made it and have learnt to see it. However, in discussing our societal state of mind, our human meanings as
expressed in language, we cannot avoid reflecting also on the words embodying those meanings. Talking
about the metapragmatic constraints that tell us how to use, and how not to use, the words that go with our
world and minds naturally leads us to a reflection on the words themselves and on the ways we use them.
Invariably, the elements of any language have no meanings by themselves and also in many
combinations they are meaningless without applying the rules that it takes the way in which symbols can be
use. Meanings therefore, are in people and not in words. For instance, if a dozen people are shown the symbol
of the Cross, and they are asked what that symbol means, we are likely to get twelve different answers. Like
symbols, words can be interpreted in many different ways. These differences in interpretation are obviously
they basis for many misunderstandings. It is possible to engage in an argument about feminism without
realizing that we and the other person in the argument are using the same word to represent entirely different
things. This has a lot to do with style of speaking and precision of speech. Yule (2010, p.257) defines speech
style as: “A social feature of language use. The most basic distinction in speech style is between formal uses
and informal uses. Formal style is when we pay more careful attention to how we’re speaking and informal
style is when we pay less attention. They are sometimes described as careful style and casual style. A change
from one style to the other by an individual is called style-shifting”.
Hymes Ethnographic Model of Speaking and “I” Language
The theoretical model of this paper is anchored in the ethnography of speaking by Dell Hathaway
Hymes (1974) and “I” language. Hymes presented an ethnographic framework which encapsulated all the
aspects that are involved in speaking. He formulated an acronym for the word SPEAKING as relevant factors
for his analysis in a speech act. Wardhaugh (201,p.261) stresses that:
 What Hymes offers us in his SPEAKING formula is a very necessary reminder that talk is a complex
activity and that any particular bit of talk is actually a piece of skilled work. It is skilled in the sense that, if it
is to be successful, the speaker must reveal a sensitivity to an awareness of each of the eight factors outlined
above. Speakers and listeners must also work to see that nothing goes wrong. When speaking does go wrong,
as it sometimes does, that going-wrong is often clearly describable in terms of some neglects of one more of
the factors. Since we acknowledge that there are better speakers and poor speakers, we may also assume that
individuals vary in their ability to manage and exploit the total array of factors.
Hymes model can be used to understand relationships and power dynamics within a given speech
community and provide insight on cultural values. This model is a tool to assist the identification and
labeling of components of interactional linguistics that was driven by his view that, in order to speak a
language correctly, one needs not only to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but also the context in which
words are used in essence, the learning of the components of the speaking model for linguistic competence.
Thus: Hymes’s model has the following factors:
Setting and Scene (s):
Hymes notes that the setting and scene of any speech act are important factors to be considered. The
setting represents the physical and concrete time and place of speech acts while the scene represents the
abstract and psychological setting of speech acts. Participants (P): this represents the various participants in
a speech act ranging from the speaker to listener, sender to receiver, addresser to addressee. Bloor & Bloor
(2007, p.10) explain that:
The participants are those persons who are engaged in a specific act of discourse. These may be
speakers, listeners, readers, writers and each will be playing a social role. The term role is used much as it is
in drama where an actor plays a role in a film or dramatic production. Most of us are called on to play many
roles in our normal everyday life. For example, take a man named Ahmed. At home, he is a husband and
father but, during his work day he is an architect. He is also the accountant of the local tennis club where, on
Sunday mornings, he acts as an umpire. In each of these roles, he is engaged in different social practices, is
likely to use different genres and the language associated with those practices and genres. When he is being
a dad, he behaves like a dad and sounds like a dada, when he is an umpire, he looks like an umpire and
sounds like an umpire, and so on in every role. And yet, at the same time, he is always himself.
Ends (s): Hymes uses this to refer to the expected outcome the participants seek to accomplish at the
end. Wardhauh (2010,p.260) adds that:
A trial in a courtroom has a recognizable social end in view, but the various participants, i.e,
the judges, jury, prosecution, defense, accused, and witnesses have different personal goals. Likewise, in
marriage ceremony services a certain Social end, but each of the various participants may have his or
her own unique goal in getting married or in seeing a particular couple married.
Act (A): This stands for the exact content and form of the discourse. That is to say, the precise words
used, how they are used and the relationship of what is said to the actual topic at hand. Wardhaugh notes
that, ‘’This is one aspect of speaking in which linguists have long shown interest, particularly those who
study discourse and conversation…others too, e.g. psychologist and communication theorists concerned
with content analysis, have shown similar interest. Public lectures casual conversations, and cocktail party
chatter are all different forms of speaking with each different kinds of language and things talked about’’.
-Key (K): This refers to the tone, mood, manner in which a particular message is conveyed; light-hearted,
serious, precise, pedantic, mocking, sarcastic, pompous, and so on.
Instrumentalities (I): means the choice of channel, the mode and medium of the discourse events, i.e., if it is
face to face; one speaker to many listeners; written to be read; illustrated text, etc. wardhaugh explains that:
Choice of channel could be oral, written, or telegraphic, and to the actual forms of speech employed,
such as the language, dialect, code, or register that is chosen. Formal, written, legal language is one
instrumentality; spoken Newfoundland English is another; code-switching between English and Italian in
Toronto is a third; and the use of pig Latin is still another … you may employ different instrumentalities in
the course of a single verbal exchange of some length: First read something, then tell a dialect joke, then quote
Shakespeare, then use an expression from another language, and so on.
Norms of interaction and interpretation (N):This refers to the unique properties and characteristics that are
involve in a speech act and interpretation of an individual who do not share these properties. For example,
there are certain norms of interaction with regard to church service, with strangers, with elders, with the
general public, at the courtroom, in business transaction, and so on.
-Genre (G): This is the type of utterance. In Bloor &Bloor (2007,p.8-9) definition:
Genre is the term used for specific product of a social practice. It is a form of discourse, culturally
recognized which, more or less, obeys socially agreed structures. The term is well known in literary and film
studies, from which it has been borrowed by discourse analysis. Examples of literary and linguistic genres
are novels, poems, university lectures, biology lab reports, letters, theatre reviews. Genres can be classified
crudely or more delicately-so the genre letter could be sub-categorized into say, business correspondence,
letter to the editor, friendly letter, love letter, each having its own format as stylistic characteristics….Thus
minutes of meeting, annual reports, business, correspondences are associated with business institutions,
lectures, seminars, tutorials, textbooks, notes, essays, and examination papers are associated with
educational institution.
The language we normally use when there is a snag
Interestingly, our day rarely goes by without some dissatisfaction with others. Let us consider a few
instances;
A colleague promises to cover our shift at the office and then cancels the promise at the last minute.
A group of people from a different cultural background makes an ethnic joke that is offensive to another
group in the media.
A close relative gives an irrelevant advice on how we should live our lives.
Problems like these are bound and real enough at one time or the other in our lives, but criticizing or making
issues out of such matters with person or group of persons often make matter and relationships worse, not
better. Now, these are possible reaction to the above issues:
-you didn’t keep your promise!
-you guys are crude at times!
-I wish you were not so critical!
The above illustrations are examples of ‘you’ language pattern of speaking that expresses a judgment of other
persons or group of persons. Despite its name, ‘you.’ Language does not contain the pronoun ‘you’, which
is often implied rather than stated outright just like the ones below;
-mind your own business! [you are too nosy]
-that was a stupid joke! [ your jokes are stupid]
-do not be so critical! [you are too negative]
The participants in any discourse must bear in mind that, Whether the judgment is stated outright or
implied, it is easy to see why ‘you’ language arouses defensiveness. It is glaring that many people do not like
to accept a judgment position even when the evaluation is correct. Brown and levinson (1987,p.66) warn that;
“face is the public self image that every member of society wants to claim for himself… A kind of mutual
self-interest requires that conversational participants maintain both their own face and their interactor’s
face”. Saeed (2007,p.236) adds that:
In this view, many verbal interactions are potential threats to face. Threats to negative face, which
potentially damage an individual’s autonomy, include orders, requests, suggestions, and advice. Threats to
positive face, with potentially lower an individual’s self-esteem, include expressions of disapproval,
disagreements, accusations and interruptions. Speakers can threaten their own face by their word: such self-
threats to positive face include apologies and confessions.
Better ways to use language when there is a snag
Fortunately, there are better ways to express a gripe in situation like the above for peaceful discourse
and for national development. The best way to speak in cases where there is a gripe is to apply Hymes
ethnography of speaking and ‘l’ language. Hymes model of speaking and ‘I’ language usually describe and
calm speaker’s reaction to the other’s behavior void of any judgment about its worth. Therefore, to achieve
politeness in such a cases complete ‘l’ statement and Hymes model of speaking are needed .A complete
Hymes model and ‘l’ statement have three parts. They are:
a. They describe the other person’s behavior .
b. They describe your feelings.
c. They describe the consequences the other’s behavior has for you.
For examples:
-I felt so bad [feelings] when you didn’t keep your promise this morning [behavior] because I arrived late for
work.(Consequences.
- I feel hurt (feelings) on any joke [behavior] about ethnic matters because it can lead to serious
misunderstanding. (consequences)
-I feel so horrible (feelings) that you think of me this way. [behaviour]
Also, when the chances of being misunderstood or getting a defensive reaction are high, it is a good idea to
include all three elements in the ‘I’ message and Hymes model of speaking. However, in some cases, only
one or two can get the job done. For example.
-I went through a lot of trouble fixing the hall for this conference, and now it is cancelled of course I am mad!
[the behaviour is obvious]
-I am bothered because you have not called me up.[bothered is both a feeling and a consequence]
Unfortunately, even the best ‘l’ statement will not work if it is not delivered in the right way. This is because,
according to Hymes and some other sociolinguists, other elements like tone of the voice, facial expression
and posture have messages to send. The best way to make actions match with our words is to remind
ourselves before
speaking, so that, we don’t act like a judge and a jury.
Benefits of using Hymes model of speaking and ’l’ language in our style of speaking for national
development
There are many benefits of using Hymes model of speaking and ‘l’ language in a multifarious country like
Nigeria for peace building and national development. Some of these benefits are:
1. Hymes model of speaking and ’l’ statement deliver more information than ‘you’ message. This is
because, instead of making the other person guess about what is bothering you; the model rather
describes the other person’s behaviour. This model of speaking also describes how the other
behaviour affects you and how you feeling.
2. This model also expresses honesty and politeness in discourse than ‘you’ message. They let you speak
your mind, sharing what bothered you in a calm and polite manner. They not artificially nice or
watered down to avoid displeasing the other person. In fact, because ‘l’ statements are easier on the
recipient, we are more likely to use them when we might be reluctant to blurt out an accusing ‘you’
message
3. Our messages are more likely to be accepted when they are delivered in ‘l’ language than when we
make judgmental ‘you’ statement. Even accurate ‘you’ statement like; ‘’you are late’’, ‘’you broke your
promise’’ are hard to take. By contrast, Hymes model of speaking and ‘l’ statements are not a direct
attack on the recipient. Since they describe how the speaker feels. They are easier to accept without
justification. This does not mean using ‘I’ language eliminates defensiveness, but it will almost
certainly reduced it.
Some reservations to Hymes model of speaking and ‘I’ language
Unfortunately, some readers have reservations about using Hymes model of speaking and ‘I’ language,
despite its theoretical appeal. To them, the best way to overcome questions about communication skills is to
answer them.
1. It is true that when we are angry that the most likely reaction is to lash out with a judgmental ‘you’
message. In such situations, it is probably smarter to keep quiet until we have thought about the
consequences of what we might say than to blurt out something we will regret later. It is also
important to note that there is plenty of room for expressing anger with ‘I’ language. It is just that we
 own the feeling as ours. See this illustration: “you bet I am mad at you!” instead of distorting it into
an attack as in “that was a stupid thing to do!”
2. Sometimes, others are so uncooperative or that they are unreachable. In other cases, we are so upset
or irritated that our judgmental feeling contradict our words. But using Hymes model of speaking
and ‘I’ language will almost certainly improve our chances for success, with no risk that this approach
will make matters worse. It is good to give it a trial.
3. Hymes model of speaking and ‘I’ language sounds artificial and awkward to so many people. One of
the best ways to overcome this initial awkwardness of using this model is to practice making it in a
safe way: by trying them out in a class, writing them in letters, and delivering them to ‘safe’ people
on relatively minor issues.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The ability to use Hymes model of speaking and ’I’ language instead of ‘you’ language during any discourse
can improve the quality of relationships and enhance national development by improving clarity and
reducing defensiveness in a multilingual nation like Nigeria. Besides resolving conflicts smoothly, this model
is marked by exactness, accuracy, and consistency than ‘you’ language. Finally, every participant in a
discourse act must know that failure to use language with care and caution it deserves can lead to
misunderstandings. Sometimes, these misunderstandings and crisis are relatively minor, but in other cases,
they can be disastrous to national development.
 Reference
Bloor, M. & Bloor, T.(2007): The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: in Introduction . London: Hachette
UK Company.

Bolinger, D. (1975): Aspects of Language. 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987): Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use.CUP

Hymes, D.H (1974): Foundations in Sociolinguistics; an Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Okoro, G. O.& Okereke, C.J.(20016); Towards The Implementation of the National Language Policy in
Nigerian Schools. in Review of art and Social Sciences Quarterly Journal Of Inter-University
Friendship Association 5 (5) Pp.119-110.

Onuegwunwoke, C.A.& Olekaibe, C.(2016): The Effect of Code-Switching Among Igbo-English Bilinguals.
in Review of art and social sciences Quarterly Journal Of Inter-University Friendship Association
5(5)Pp115-116.

Mey, J,L. (2006): Pragmatics. An Introduction. 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing.

Saeed, J.I. (2007): Semantics.2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing.

R. (2010):an introduction to sociolinguistics. 6th edn. Blackwell publishing

the study of language. 4th edn. CUP

View publication stats