5 Ahaotu Eng Versus Indigenous Langs AFFREV 14 2

AFRREV VOL 14 (2), S/NO 58, APRIL, 2020
African Research Review: An International

Multidisciplinary Journal, Ethiopia
AFRREV Vol. 14 (2), Serial No 58, April, 2020: 79-93
ISSN 1994-9057 (Print) ISSN 2070-0083 (Online)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v14i2.8
English versus Indigenous Nigerian Languages: Trends in Language

Acquisition among Students of University of Port Harcourt,
Nigeria
Ahaotu, Joseph Onyema

Department of English Studies
University of Port Harcourt
Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Primary E-mail: onyemaall@yahoo.com
Work E-mail: Joseph.ahaotu@uniport.edu.ng
Mobile Telephone: +234 806 4 390 390
Abstract
The study investigated the trend of language acquisition among undergraduates of University
of Port, Port Harcourt, Nigeria using Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis as
framework of the study. The respondents’ language acquisition goals in the short, medium,
and long terms formed the indices of trending. Research data obtained with a questionnaire
from sampled students of University of Port Harcourt were analyzed with tables, simple
percentages, and significant ratios. Indigenous Nigerian languages were found to be relegated
while acquisition of non-indigenous Nigerian languages are preferred in respondents’ choices
based on the three indices of short term, medium term, and long term language acquisition
goals. The study concluded that the dominant trend of language acquisition among the
respondents is a preference of non-indigenous Nigerian languages especially English and that
English language is used more than native Nigerian languages by the respondents. The paper
recommended strategies through which this trend could be reversed to save native Nigerian
languages from further endangerment and death.
Key Words: language policy, language acquisition, indigenous Nigerian languages, language
endangerment, language and development
Introduction
English was introduced into the part of the West African region now known as Nigeria
through trade, missionary activities, and colonization. British merchants made trade contact
COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 79

Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info
Indexed Society of African Journals Editors (SAJE); https://africaneditors.org/
with West Africans in the 16th century and later displaced the Portuguese who had
established trading posts before the advent of the British (Ogu, 1992). Portuguese-West
African trade was mainly on spices but the British merchants expanded the commodities of
trade as they sought various raw materials for the European factories of the Industrial
Revolution and also opened up West Africa to the goods produced in European industries.
Christian missionaries and British colonialists came afterwards and their various activities
contributed to the implantation of English in Nigeria, which now competes for linguistic
space and relevance in Nigeria where an estimated 526 languages exist (Ethnologue, 2018).
In view of this multilingual nature of Nigeria, Nigerians, including the respondents in the
study, are confronted with the dilemma of choice of languages to acquire and use. Because it
would be both an unnecessary and a Herculean task to learn all 526 languages at once,
individual choices are limited to few languages at a given time. The choice of which language
to learn is influenced by functionality, economics, and cultural loyalty. Function is essential
because language acquisition is a tedious process and people would not like to acquire a
language that would not be useful to them afterwards. People prefer to learn and teach their
children languages that will be useful for them to perform social functions. In fulfilment of
function, the lingua franca of a community is a usual favourite choice of those faced with
options of languages to learn. Also, economics plays a major role in choice of language(s) to
acquire. A language that offers prospects of employment attracts more learners than others
that present no such advantages to their users. Function and economics tend to be more
compelling factors influencing choice of language for acquisition than cultural loyalty.
Cultural loyalty may influence language acquisition when learners wish to identify with their
cultural roots but it cannot sustain the effective use of the language; especially if such a
language is not effectively used in the learner’s immediate community.
Two of the challenges militating against increased acquisition of native Nigerian languages
are their lack of economic value and their limited functionality. There are limited employment
opportunities requiring competence in native Nigerian languages and apart from the Hausa,
Igbo, and Yoruba that are spoken at both regional levels and outside Nigeria, native Nigerian
languages (NNLs) do not help their speakers to interact with a wider community, such as in
transcultural communication in the various Nigerian cities and in other parts of the world.
This brings English, a major non-native Nigerian language, into the equation of choice of
language for acquisition by Nigerians. English has co-existed with native Nigerian languages
for more than 400 years. It is domesticated and used widely for official purposes, education,
mass media, intercultural communication, etc. It offers its users enormous employment
opportunities and is spoken by more people in different parts of the world than any other
language. This survey investigated the trend of choice of languages for acquisition by the
population represented by the respondents in order to determine the status of native Nigerian
languages in comparison with English.
Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Stephen Krashen was a foremost theorist on second language acquisition. From the mid-
1970s to the early 1980s, Krashen developed a number of hypotheses that constitute the
Monitor Model of second language acquisition. Krashen and Terrell (2000, p.59) presented
five hypotheses that make up the model, which are as follows:
1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
2. The Monitor Hypothesis
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis
4. The Input Hypothesis

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
Each of these hypotheses focused on specific aspects of second language acquisition. For
instance, the Natural Order Hypothesis focused on the similarities between first language (L1)
acquisition and second language (L2) learning and therefore suggested that second language
learning can follow a sequence of predictable stages of development that is common in native
language acquisition. In comparison, the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis is a
psycholinguistic approach to the study of second language acquisition and it introduced a
dichotomy in the processes of language acquisition between native and non-native speakers of
a language. Krashen used ‘acquisition’ to describe subconscious process happening in a
naturalistic context. In contrast to this, he used ‘learning’ to describe a conscious process
happening in a formal context such as a classroom. To Krashen, ‘acquisition’ is the process
followed by children in the acquisition of L1 while ‘learning’ is the process followed by
children learning an L2 in school.
The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis holds that adults are capable of acquiring language and
they have two distinct ways of developing competence in an L2: they either do this by
‘acquisition’ – ‘by using language for real communication’ in a ‘natural way that develops
linguistic ability’ Krashen & Terrell, 2000, p. 26) or they do it by ‘learning’, which is a
conscious formal knowledge of the language.
The respondents in this study do not completely match Krashen’s hypothesis. Although they
are adults in line with Krashen’s postulation, their processes of acquisition of English
interfaces attributes of both ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’. English is so widely used and
domesticated in Nigeria that a majority of the learners are exposed to forms of the language
before they enrol in school. Some of the respondents in this survey indicated that they
acquired English as L1 while others indicated that English is their home language even
though they are not native speakers. Based on these, the study leant on the criticisms of
Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis by writers such as: David Block (2003), Gass
and Selinker (20010), and Mitchell and Myles (1998) and used both acquisition and learning
as interchangeable synonyms in this study.
Literature Review
English has grown exponentially from its Anglo-Saxon origin to the years of world
dominance of the British Empire and the American hegemony that followed it till the present
time. English is firmly established as a global language; having achieved the widest
geographical spread and the highest number of non-native speakers spread over all the
inhabited continents of the world. With the language, English culture and civilization have
flourished as well because ‘The language you choose to use shapes your culture and your
culture shapes your language’ (Beebe, Beebe & Ivy, 2004, p. 6; cited in Gbeyonron, 2013, p.
318). Gbenyonron (2013) highlighted some of the difficulties faced by both teachers and
learners of English in Nigeria’s multilingual/multicultural contexts. He observed that the
language is not originally indigenous to Nigeria but admitted ‘the fact that English language
“belongs” to anyone who uses it, irrespective of one’s ethnolinguistic affiliation…’ (p. 315).
He concluded that English is a second language in Nigeria. However, it is important to
observe that Nigerians are no longer exclusively acquiring their native languages before
learning English. A large and an ever-increasing number of Nigerians either acquire English
before a native language or they acquire the two simultaneously. Many Nigerians are

acquiring more English and less of local languages. Ndimele (2014) has presented an
appropriate gloomy image of the situation in the following words:
… it is reported that every hour a language dies somewhere in the world, and
that two-thirds of these deaths are recorded in Africa, with Nigeria taking the
lead. … . All Nigerian languages are steadily losing speakers; the minority
ones to the medium and large linguistic groups around them or to English (in
all its forms) or Pidgin; the large ones are losing speakers to English (in all its
forms) or Pidgin. A time shall come when many Nigerians will have no
competence (not even oracy) in any human language (pp. 23-24).
Ndimele’s view has found manifestation in many undergraduate students in Nigerian
universities who lack native speaker-like command of either English or a native Nigerian
language. Some instances of poor performance by students are attributable to the students’
inability to exercise the type of deep thought in the language of education as such deep
thought is only attainable to competent users of the language. Many studies have linked
language competence to cognition, individual, and national development (Akmajian, Demers,
Farmer, & Harnish, 2010; Emenanjo, 2010; Upah, 2010). They buttress the view in this study
that people tend to choose to acquire languages that would support their development to
function effectively in the society and also enhance their economic status. A nation may
promote the languages that enhance its national development and the development of its
citizenry; and in some cases, the relevant languages are not indigenous to the society. This is
exemplified in the promotion of English in Nigeria.
The exponential growth of some languages has contributed to growing phenomenon of
language death across the world. Several languages are dead and several more are at various
stages of extinction. Graddol (2006) summarized the situation when he noted that only a
handful of languages are undergoing meaningful development and exponential growth in
number of speakers. He listed these to include: English, Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, Russian,
Bengali, Portuguese, German, French, and Japanese. None of Nigeria’s native languages is
included in the list of flourishing world languages despite Nigeria’s large population of about
200 million people and linguistic profile of over 500 indigenous languages.
Mitchell and Myles (1998) disagreed with Krashen’s distinction between learning and
acquisition. In their words;
Some second language researchers have proposed a principled distinction
between formal, conscious learning and informal, unconscious acquisition.
This distinction attracted much criticism when argued in a strong form by
Stephen Krashen (1981); it still has its active supporters and its critics. We
think it is difficult to sustain systematically when surveying SLL [second
language learning] research …. (p.2)
Gass and Selinker (2001) further critiqued the Monitor Model and questioned Krashen’s
dichotomy of acquisition and learning. They based their criticism of Krashen’s view of
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis on the following Points:
1. It is unlikely that the human brain sustains a system that stores ‘acquired’ and
‘learned’ knowledge of a language in different parts.
2. Language processes involve both acquisition and learning; acquisition aids the L2
production of what has been learned.

3. Krashen did not provide evidence or criteria for evaluating his claims of a dichotomy
between the terms
The criticisms exposed the absence of contextual variables in the hypothesis and this opens it
up to manipulations. But contrary to Gass and Selinker’s submission that ‘the hypothesis
remains an interesting one, but nothing more than that’ (p. 203), the researcher believes that
Krashen made an important contribution to second language acquisition research in his
proposal that adults are capable of learning language; especially as the hypothesis attempted
to clarify the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of adult second language learning. This contribution
complements widely held views of child critical language acquisition stage.
In view of the various reviewed literature on the subject and the criticisms of the Acquisition-
Learning Hypothesis, this survey adopted a modified form of the Hypothesis. The study
aligned with Krashen’s position on adult acquisition of language but holds reservations on his
paradigm of distinction between acquisition and learning.
Aim and Significance of the Study
The primary aim of the study is to determine the trends of language acquisition among the
study population. The study exposed the respondents’ trend of language acquisition, which
endangers native Nigerian languages and recommended strategies that could be used in
reversing the trend. This is a significant contribution to the formulation and implementation
of a comprehensive language policy for Nigeria.
Research Questions
The survey is guided by the following 3 research questions:
1. Is there an identifiable trend of language acquisition among undergraduates of
University of Port Harcourt?
2. Does the trend favour increased acquisition of native Nigerian languages?
3. Does the trend promote increased acquisition of English?
Hypotheses
The researcher formulated 3 null hypotheses to validate the research results. They are as
follows:
1. There is no identifiable trend of language acquisition among undergraduate students
of the University of Port Harcourt
2. The trend does not portend a negative impact on native Nigerian languages.
3. The trend does not portend any impact on the use of English in Nigeria.
Research Design
The researcher adopted the survey technique for this study and used a questionnaire for data
collection. The Data were analysed with statistical tools and the results were subjected to null
hypothesis test to validate the research questions.
Research Population
The research population comprised all registered undergraduate students of University of Port
Harcourt. The researcher decided to narrow the sample down to students of the Department of

English Studies, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, as at the 2013/2014 academic
year. This group has a population of three hundred and forty-one (341) students and a
breakdown of the figure is as follows:
Year 1 ----------75
Year 2 --------- 104
Year 3 --------- 62
Year 4 --------- 100
Total ---------- 341
Sample and Sampling Design
The researcher used a simple random sampling technique to select a total of one hundred
respondents (represented by 25 students from each level of study) from the group. This figure
represents 27% of the research population of 341 undergraduate students. The respondents are
from different levels of study and had diverse ethno-linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Data Collection Instrument
The researcher used a questionnaire to collect data from the sample population. The
instrument has two sections: Section A elicited information about respondents’ personal
data/background while Section B presented the items on the instrument. Fourteen (14) study
questions and options were presented to respondents in the guided response forms of
Yes/No/Void.
Method of Data Collection
The questionnaire was administered on the respondents at the end of different lectures. In
each class, 25 students were randomly given the questionnaire to fill out on the spot. As much
as he could, the researcher observed requirements of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)
in the random selection, such that coverage of demographic variables of sex, age, and
ethnicity was ensured. The respondents were asked to fill out their personal data and respond
to the fourteen study questions on the questionnaire. All the instruments administered were
retrieved on the spot.
Method of Data Analysis
The data collected with the instrument were analyzed with statistical instruments of simple
percentages, significant ratios, comparison, and contrast. The researcher treated all
unanswered questions as void.
Data Presentation, Analysis and Discussion
Data Presentation
The following collected in the study. The following result was obtained as responses from the
survey and is presented below as raw data.

Table 1: Raw data collected in the Study

Question number Yes No Void Total
1 91 9 -nil- 100
2 27 66 17 100
3 77 21 2 100
4 35 73 2 100
5 64 32 4 100
6 61 33 6 100
7 39 57 4 100
8 52 35 13 100
9 21 77 2 100
10 90 4 6 100
11 83 17 - 100
12 19 81 - 100
13 76 24 - 100
14 63 27 - 100
Data Analysis
From the personal data of the respondents, the researcher noted that they are all under forty
years of age and that demographically, they are all Nigerians; some of whom speak the
following Nigerian languages in their alphabetical order: Abua/Odual, Ahoada, Edo, Ekpeye,
Etchie, Esan, Hausa, Ibibio, Igbo, Ijaw, Ika, Ikwerre, Kalabari, Ogba, Ogbia, Ogoni, Okrika,
Opobo, Urhobo, Yakurr, and Yoruba. The raw data on the above table is represented on the
following percentile table and subsequent analysis of the data:
Table 2: Percentile distribution of responses to the study questions
Study Question % Yes % No % Void % Retrieved
1 91 9 0 100
2 27 66 17 100
3 77 21 2 100
4 35 73 2 100
5 64 32 4 100
6 61 33 6 100
7 39 57 4 100
8 52 35 13 100
9 21 77 2 100
10 90 4 6 100
11 83 17 0 100
12 19 81 0 100
13 76 24 0 100
14 63 27 0 100
Study Question 1: Do your parents speak the same native languages?

Ninety-one respondents (91%) answered this question in the affirmative while nine
respondents (9%) answered in the negative. Spouses that speak different languages are most
probably from different ethnic backgrounds. This result shows a surprising low rate of such
marriages among the respondents’ parents. Educated spouses from different ethnic
backgrounds in Nigeria often adopt the language of one partner or English as home language.
Uneducated or poorly educated ones often adopt Nigerian Pidgin English as home language if
both cannot communicate in the language of one of the partners.
Study Question 2: Which language do you normally speak at home: English (Yes) or a
native language (No)?
Twenty-seven respondents (27%) affirmed that they speak only English at home; sixty-six
others (66%) indicated they speak one of the native Nigerian languages at home; while the
remaining seventeen (17%) respondents stated that they use a mixture of English and a native
Nigerian language at home. Since the response values of the questions are fixed at ‘Yes’,
‘No’, and ‘Void’, the 17% is recorded as void. In comparison with the result of Study
Question 1, there is an increasing trend of the use of English as home language among
Nigerians and this is not merely because of the need for a common language in cross-cultural
marriages. The parents of only 9% of the sample population have different native languages;
but 27% of the respondents use English for communication at home. The fact that the latter is
triple the value of the former indicates that the use of English in Nigerian homes is not
directly proportionate to the incidence of mixed marriages.
Study Question 3: Is this home language the native language of any of your parents?
Seventy-seven respondents (77%) answered this question in the affirmative. A further
breakdown of the figure shows that in 70% of the homes, this language is one of Nigeria’s
native languages. This result is consistent with the result of Study Question 2 above where
66% of the respondents indicated that they use a Nigerian language at home. 7% of the
respondents among this 77% indicated that English is the only language of at least one of
their parents. Twenty-one respondents (21%) indicated that the home language is not the only
language spoken by any of their parents while two responses (2%) were voided.
Study Question 4: What language did you first acquire as a child?
Twenty-five respondents (25%) acquired English as an L1; seventy-three respondents (73%)
acquired a Nigerian language first; while two responses (2%) were voided.
Study Question 5: Is this first language the native language of any of your parents?
For sixty-four respondents (64%) the first language they acquired is also the only language
spoken by at least one of the parents. Thirty-two respondents (32%) indicated that they first
learnt a language that is not native to any of their parents while two responses (2%) were
voided.
Study Question 6: Which language are you most proficient in?
Sixty-one respondents (61%) are most proficient in English; thirty-three respondents (33%)
are most proficient in a Nigerian language; while six responses (6%) were voided.
Study Question 7: Is this language (in 6 above) your native language?
Thirty-seven respondents (37%) agreed that they are more proficient in their native language
while fifty-seven respondents (57%) indicated that they are more proficient in a language that
is not native to them. The remaining four responses (4%) were voided.
Study Question 8: Which language(s) are you most interested in learning?

Fifty-two respondents (52%) indicated interest in learning more English while thirty-five
respondents (35%) are more interested in learning more of another language. The remaining
thirteen responses (13%) were not interested in learning more of any language and were
therefore voided. A further breakdown of the other languages that respondents are interested
in learning is as follows:
Table 3: The Distribution of Languages that the Respondents Are Interested in
Learning.
Serial Number Name of Language Number of Interested
Learners
1 French 5
2 Hausa 5
3 Igbo 5
4 Yoruba 5
5 Spanish 4
6 Ikwerre 3
7 Kalabari 2
8 Chinese 1
9 Ibibio 1
10 Ika 1
11 Esan 1
12 Etchie 1
13 Latin 1
The distribution indicated that thirty-five respondents (35%) are interested in learning a total
of thirteen (four foreign and nine local) languages. A further breakdown of the figures
indicated that twenty-four respondents (24%) are interested in learning the listed nine local
languages while eleven respondents (11%) are interested in learning the remaining four
international languages. Overall, for this trend, a cumulative of 63% of the respondents would
like to learn one of 5 non-indigenous Nigerian languages while 24% of the respondents would
like to learn one of 9 indigenous Nigerian languages. The remaining 13% are presently not
inclined to learning more of any language.
Study Question 9: Is this language (in 8 above) your native language?
Twenty-one respondents (21%) prefer to learn more of their native language; seventy-seven
respondents (77%) would like to learn a language different from their native language; while
two responses (2%) were voided.
Study Question 10: Which language can you best read and write in?
Ninety respondents (90%) indicated that they read and write best in English. Four respondents
(4%) indicated that they read and write best in a Nigerian language; while six responses were
voided.
Study Question 11: Do your parents encourage you to learn their native language?
Eighty-three respondents (83%) answered this question in the affirmative; seventeen
respondents (17%) answered in the negative.
Study Question 12: Would you like to raise your children in English?
Nineteen respondents (19%) indicated they would like to train their children in their own
native language but eighty-one other respondents (81%) would rather train their children in a
language that is non-native to them.
Study Question 13: My native language is predominantly used in my neighbourhood.
Seventy-six respondents (76%) affirmed that their home speech communities are
predominated by their native language. However, twenty-four respondents (24%) indicated
that their native language does not predominate in their communities. These include situations
where the native language is dominated by a foreign language and other situations where the
native language shares prominence with another language.
Study Question 14: English or Nigerian Pidgin English (NPE) is the lingua franca of my
community.
Sixty-three respondents (63%) admitted that English/NPE is the lingua franca of their
community; while twenty-seven respondents (27%) indicated that the statement is not true of
their communities.
Discussion and Analyses of Research Questions:
The researcher used the above study questions to elicit the responses presented underneath
each. The following analyses aims at using to responses to answer the research questions.
Research Question 1: Is there an identifiable trend of language acquisition among
undergraduates of University of Port Harcourt?
The researcher used a number of questions to elicit responses that were used to answer this
question. The result represents a cumulative of the responses to questionnaire items 1 – 5;
which are as follows:
1. Do your parents speak the same native languages?
2. Which language do you normally speak at home?
3. Is this home language the native language of any of your parents?
4. What language did you first acquire as a child?
5. Is this first language the language of any of your parents?
Table 4:The Raw Data Collected from the Cluster of Study Questions that Addressed
Research Question 1
Study Question % Yes % No % Void
1 91 9 0
2 27 66 17
3 77 21 2
4 25 73 2
5 64 32 4
From the above table, we observe that only 9% of the respondents’ parents are from different
ethno-linguistic backgrounds (Study Question 1). The dilemma of language choice is easier for
situations in which one of the partners speaks the other’s language. Otherwise, the couples
usually make the choice of a third language that they mutually speak; and in Nigeria, English

has the privilege of often been that choice language. The 91% whose parents speak the same
language provides a classic background for the common use of parents’ MT at home. Yet, the
result of Study Question 2 (27% of the respondents normally speak English at home) indicates
that English is still a significant language of communication in many of these homes where
both parents speak the same NNL. This result corroborates the result of Study Question 4 (25%
acquired English before any other language; 73% acquired a Nigerian language first; while 2% are unsure
of which language they acquired first). The implication of this is a strong trend of the acquisition
of English and a consequent relegation of NNLs by the younger generations of those that
should constitute native speakers of the NNLs.
Research Question 2: Does the trend favour increased acquisition of native Nigerian
languages?
The researcher used five questions to elicit responses that were used to answer this
question. The result represents a cumulative of the responses to questionnaire items 6– 10;
6. Which language are you more proficient in?
7. Is this language (in 6 above) your parent’s native language?
8. Which language(s) are you most interested in learning?
9. Is this language (in 8 above) your parent’s native language?
10. Which language can you best read and write in?
Table 5:The data collected with the cluster of study questions that address research
question 2
6 61 33 6
7 39 57 4
8 52 35 13
9 21 77 2
10 90 4 6
The above questions were designed to double check the significance of the results obtained
from study questions 1 – 5 regarding the linguistic profile of the respondents. A total of 61% of
the respondents are more proficient in English language in comparison to the 33% that are
more proficient in the other estimated 400 indigenous languages in Nigeria. This result is
consistent with the findings of Study Questions 2 (in which 27% affirmed that they speak only
English at home) and Study Question 4 (in which 25% stated that they acquired English as an L1).
One implication of this is that English is unarguably not just the language with the highest
number of speakers in Nigeria but also the language in which many younger generations of
educated Nigerians are comparatively most proficient.
The respondents’ trending patterns of language acquisition are further established by their
responses to Study Questions 8 and 10; their language goals and current literacy skills. A total
of 52% of the respondents’ desire to learn more English in comparison to the 48% that would
like to learn one out of 13 other languages; the distribution of which is presented on table 3
above. This highlights the long-term linguistic goal of respondents to centre on more

proficiency in English; a development that will further enhance the shift in their linguistic
identities. The result of Study Questions 10 is more definitive of the linguistic identity of the
respondents, 90% of whom admitted that their only or highest literacy skills (reading and
writing) are in English. Only 4% indicated that they read and write best in an indigenous
Nigerian language while the remaining 6% are unsure.
In relation to Study Questions 7 and 9, more than half (57%) of the respondents are most
proficient in a language other than their parent’s MT while only 39% are most proficient in the
MT of at least one of the parents. The result obtained from Study Questions 7 has close
correlation with the 33% of respondents who indicated they were more proficient in a language
other than English, as reported in Study Question 6. Also, 77% of the respondents to Study
Question 9 have no interest in learning more of their parent’s MT in comparison to 21% that
desire to learn more of their parent’s MT. In answer to Study Question 2, the trend identified in
this study does not favour increased acquisition of native Nigerian languages because they
ranked very low in the choice of a majority of the respondents.
Research Question 3: Does the trend promote increased acquisition of English?
The following result represents a cumulative of the responses to Study Questions 11– 14;
11. Did your parents encourage you to learn their native language?
12. Would you like to raise your children in English?
13. My native language is predominantly used in my neighbourhood.
14. English or English-based Pidgin is the lingua franca of my community.
Table 6: The data collected from the cluster of study questions that address research
question 3
11 83 17 0
12 19 81 0
13 76 24 0
14 63 27 0
The responses to Study Question 11 indicated that a majority of the parents of the respondents
(83%) encouraged them to learn NNLs in contrast to the 17% that did not encourage their
children. Yet, a reverse proportion of 81% of the respondents to Study Question 12 indicated
that they would raise their own children in English; a wide margin of difference when
compared to the 19% that plan to raise their children in a NNL. The implication of this
response is that the current trend of preference for the acquisition of English rather than NNLs
will continue and the relegation of NNLs will increase in the future. Overall, these results also
suggest that the respondents have unconsciously set a template for the future trend of
language acquisition by Nigerians.
Research Hypotheses Testing
Each null hypothesis (HO) was tested for validity. A hypothesis would be adopted if the
analyses of the research questions prove it to be valid. However, hypotheses that are
disproved will be discarded and their alternatives will be adopted.

Research Hypotheses 1: There are no identifiable trends of language acquisition among

undergraduate students of the University of Port Harcourt.
In their responses to study questions 1- 5, the respondents indicated an acquisition trend that
represented a conscious selection between 5 non-indigenous and 9 indigenous Nigerian
languages. The trend of selection is imperative in Nigeria’s linguistic environment that has an
estimated over 500 indigenous languages. This finding proved that there is an identifiable
trend of dominant preference of acquisition of non-indigenous languages by the respondents.
Therefore, null hypothesis 1 (HO1) is rejected and its alternative is accepted.
Research Hypotheses 2: The trend does not portend a negative impact on native Nigerian
languages.
The data collected as responses to study questions 6 – 10 and which answered Research
Question 2 indicated respondents’ preference of non-native languages and the consequent
abandonment of native Nigerian languages by respondents who should have been native
speakers. This portends a negative impact on the native Nigerian languages because they are
losing speakers and are heading for language endangerment and death. The null hypothesis
(HO2) is therefore rejected and the alternative accepted.
Research Hypotheses 3: The trend does not portend any impact on the use of English in
Nigeria
The research findings in HO1 and HO2 above prove that there is a significant shift in the
trend of language acquisition by the respondents. The respondents are not just acquiring
language in the natural order of a mother tongue (MT) as first language (L1) and then another
language as second (L2) or foreign language (FL). Also, the respondents’ medium- and long-
term language goals both favour the acquisition of non-native languages and English is the
greatest beneficiary among the 5 non-native languages identified in this study. First, English
is the only non-native language in the study that was acquired as L1 by the respondents and
this was to the significant value of 25%. Also, it is home language to 27% of the respondents
and 90% of the respondents write and read best in English. Finally, 81% of respondents plan
to raise their children in English. This result disproves HO3 and its alternative is accepted: the
respondents’ trend of language acquisition portends a positive impact on the use of English
language in Nigeria. The trend indicated increased nativisation and use of English and the
probability of displacement of native Nigerian languages by English.
Conclusion
The study exposed the enthusiasm to learn English among the respondents and their
corresponding lack of interest in the acquisition of native Nigerian languages. The study
established respondents’ dominant trend of acquiring more English presently; planning to
acquire more English in the medium term, and aspiring to raise their children in English. In
the short term, this trend has led to a relegation of indigenous Nigerian languages, especially
by Nigerians that raise their children in multi-lingual cities. This relegation has created a
generation of young Nigerians who lack native speaker proficiency in either an indigenous
Nigerian language or in English. This portends tremendous dangers of underdevelopment;
given established importance of linguistic competence in individual and national development
(Emenanjo, 2010, Upah, 2010). In the medium term, the trend will endanger all native
Nigerian languages as they lose speakers to English; in the long term, it will contribute to the
death of the estimated 500 indigenous Nigerian languages. With their death, the numerous

cultures and civilisations that these languages embody would be lost forever. And sadly,
multiple opportunities of diversities would again be lost to humanity.
Recommendations
Based on the results of the data analyses, this study recommends as follows:
1. The National Institute for Nigerian Languages (NINLAN) should lead a vigorous project
on a comprehensive language policy for Nigeria. Nigeria has an urgent need for
language planning, language maintenance, and language development of her indigenous
languages. This should target the reversal of the identified trend in this study and should
involve multi-level engagements with stakeholders.
2. NINLAN, National Orientation Agency (NOA), Linguistics Association of Nigeria
(LAN), and other relevant stakeholders should embark on a nation-wide sensitization
campaign to enlighten citizens on the dangers of relegating their indigenous languages.
This would assist Nigerians to understand some of the misconceptions and bad language
practices that encourage the relegation of indigenous languages. For instance, parents
could be enlightened on the fact that their children would stand no comparative learning
disadvantage if they acquire a native language first before going to an English-speaking
school. They could also be enlightened on the fact that young persons are capable of
coordinate multilingualism; acquiring multiple languages simultaneously.
3. Nigerian parents as stakeholders must proactively engage their children in acquiring
their native languages. Mother tongue transference to younger generations is a parental
function and only parents can wholesomely transmit their culture and language to young
children. Fortunately, once this is successfully done, it usually becomes a life-long
learning that the children themselves would be able to effortlessly transmit to their own
future children.
References
Akmajian, A., Demers, R., Farmer, A. & Harnish, R. (2010). Linguistics: An introduction to
language and communication. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Emenanjo, N. E. (2010). Functional illiteracy: The bane of national development. English
studies and national development in Nigeria. Ndimele, O.-m. (Ed). Port Harcourt,
ELTAN & M & J Grand Orbit. 1-32.
Ethnolgue (2018). Nigeria. Accessed December 6, 2018
fromhttps://www.ethnologue.com>country.
Gass, S. M. &Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. (2nd
ed). New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
Gbeyonron, C. I. (2013). Challenges of multicultural nature of Nigerian universities in
effective classroom discourse in General English lessons. In Language, literature and
culture in a multilingual society: A festschrift for Abubakar Rasheed. Ndimele, O.-m.,
Ahmad, M. & Yakasai, H. M. (Eds). Port Harcourt: Linguistics Association of Nigeria
and M & J Grand Orbit. Pp. 315-329.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as
foreign language’. The UK: the English Company.
Krashen, S. D. & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. England: Longman.
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F, (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Edward Arnold
Ndimele, O. (2014). Nigerian core grammars in global communication: Any glimmer of hope
in this looming Armageddon? Inaugural Lecture Series No 112. Port Harcourt:
University of Port Harcourt Press Ltd.
Ogu, J. N. (1992). A historical survey of English and the Nigerian situation. Lagos: Kraft
Books Ltd.
Upah, B. N. (2010). The English language and literacy as basic tools of national development.
English studies and national development in Nigeria. Ndimele, O-m. (Ed). Port
Harcourt, ELTAN & M & J Grand Orbit. 33 – 50.


5 Ahaotu Eng Versus Indigenous Langs AFFREV 14 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

5 Ahaotu Eng Versus Indigenous Langs AFFREV 14 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AFRREV VOL 14 (2), S/NO 58, APRIL, 2020

African Research Review: An International

English versus Indigenous Nigerian Languages: Trends in Language

Ahaotu, Joseph Onyema

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 79

4. The Input Hypothesis

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 81

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 82

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 83

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 84

Table 1: Raw data collected in the Study

Study Question 1: Do your parents speak the same native languages?

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 86

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 88

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 89

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 90

Research Hypotheses 1: There are no identifiable trends of language acquisition among

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 91

COPYRIGHT © IAARR: https://www.afrrevjo.net 93

You might also like