Augustin Simo Bobda

On the Indigenization of English in and new Englishisms

Series A: General & Theoretical Papers ISSN 1435-6473 Essen: LAUD 1998 (2., unveränderte Auflage 2006) Paper No. 441

Universität Duisburg-Essen

Augustin Simo Bobda

University of Yaoundel, Cameroon (West Africa)

On the Indigenization of English in Cameroon and new Englishisms

Copyright by the author Reproduced by LAUD 1998 (2., unveränderte Auflage 2006) Linguistic Agency Series A University of Duisburg-Essen General and Theoretical FB Geisteswissenschaften Paper No. 441 Universitätsstr. 12 D- 45117 Essen

Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/laud/index.html Or contact: [email protected] Augustin Simo Bobda

On the Indigenization of English in Cameroon and new Englishisms

Since its transportation and transplantation in the colonies, the has kept on distancing itself structurally from mother-tongue varieties. Depending on the causes and the manifestations of this divergence that writers have in mind, the phenomenon has in turn been termed indigenization (e.g. Moag 1982), localization (Strevens 1982, Kachru 1986), nativization (Kachru 1986), domestication (Odusina and Ikegelu 1990), adaptation (1991), or evidence of ownership of the “other tongue” (Chisanga and Kamwangamalu 1997). The common suggestion in all these labels is that, in former British and American colonies, English has, through fossilized deviations, irreversibly taken on new identities. The present paper gives further evidence of this acquisition of new identities, based on the Corpus of Cameroon English, of which it is one of the pioneer analyses. It then discusses striking similarities in all New Englishes across national and continental borders, and discusses the strategies underlying features which, it is argued, should henceforth be called New Englishisms.

Corpus-Based Evidence

There is abundant evidence of indigenization of English in the Corpus of Cameroon English (CCE). The CCE is part of the International Corpus of English (ICE). Still relatively

1 limited, it is a corpus of one million words from written texts compiled between 1992 and 1995 at the University of Yaounde I. It has nine text categories: official press, private letters, novels and short stories, religion, tourism, official letters, personal letters, students’essays, government documents and memoranda, advertisements, and miscellaneous. For further information on this corpus, see Tiomajou 1995. Below (Table 1)is a sample of deviations from Standard (BrE) at different levels of analysis. Frequencies and percentages are shown for features which have established British equivalents(eg CamE balance vs BrE change); but only frequencies of occurrence in the data are shown for terms designating local sociocultural referents (eg achu), which have no neat English equivalents

Table 1: Some deviations elicited by the Corpus of Cameroon English.

Lexis N % achu (local dish) 9 fufu (local dish) 8 njangi (traditional meeting with money transaction) 8

Convocation 2 100% Summons 0

gate fee 5 100 admission fee 0

Balance 4 75 Change 1 25

mandat 3 75 money order 1 25

workmanship 2 100 labour 0

academician (noun) 7 100 academic 0 0

2

offhead 4 100 offhand 0 0 of recent 3 100 of late 0 0

Syntax

Articles: the both (+noun) 2 33 both 4 66

(make) noise 4 100 a noise 0 0

Other determiners: some few (for a few) 9 66 few ( for a few) 3 18 a few 3 18

That + possessive adj. (e.g. this our city) 7 100 That--- of --- (e.g. this city of yours) 0 0

Prepositions and postpositions: fill (a form) 4 75 fill in/out 1 25

pick sb 4 80 pick sb up 1 20

stress on sth 7 100 stress sth 0 0

voice out (an opinion) 2 100 voice 0 0

accuse sb for 7 70 accuse sb of 3 30

advocate for sth 5 10 advocate sth 0

cope up with 4 cope with 2

3

meet up with (e.g. a requirement) 3 75 meet 1 25

comprise of --- 5 83 comprise 1 17

to request for sth 3 100 to request sth 0 0

to demand for sth 7 100 to demand sth 0 0

succeed to do sth 3 100 succeed in doing sth 0

Verbs: would (for will) 6 75 will 2 25

allow sb do sth 4 100 allow sb to do sth 0 0

enable sb do sth 8 1000 enable sb to do sth 0 0

permit sb do sth 7 100 permit sb to do 0 0

make sb do sth 10 make sb to do 2

succeed to do sth 6 6.66 succeed in doing sth 3 3.33

Nouns: Deviant plural marker advices( in a context like “ a lot of ...”) 3 100 advice 0 0

equipments 3 100 Equipment 0 on holidays 4 100 on holiday 0 0

4

an advice 1 50 a piece of/some advice 1 50

Pronouns: verb + themselves (for each other) 3 75 each other/one another 1 25

all what 5 100 all that 0 0

Connectors and conjunctions: as such (for therefore, consequently ---) 9 81.81 therefore, consequently --- 2 18.18

meanwhile (for while, whereas) 8 80 while, whereas 2 20

The above survey shows a very noticeable divergence between BrE and Cameroon English (CamE). This kind of data is important for the eventual recognition of a Cameroonian standard for English for two main reasons. First, the corpus is a written corpus, where language is generally known to be very careful. Secondly, the texts that make up the corpus are produced by users who have attained the highest levels of education: they are renowned journalists, writers, university teachers of English (significantly), etc. Indeed, the 100% or so of Cameroonians who say on holidays, all what, enable sb do sth, balance for change are not learners of English in the traditional sense of the term. The usages exemplied are not, as McKay (1992:91) thinks, produced by people who are in the process of learning English, speakers of a type of interlanguage, who are still to develop full competence. If linguists -- whom McKay 1992:91) refers to-- agree that the English spoken by people who have reached the highest possible levels of education in their countries is legitimate and acceptable, then usages like the ones above, which are numerous in the CCE, are fully legitimate, acceptable and recommendable.

New Englishisms A number of descriptive studies of New Englishes are now available at world, continental, regional and national levels. At world level, Swan and Smith’s (1987) Learner English analyses the English mistakes of speakers from a wide range of backgrounds; “learner English” is meant to incorporate both EFL and ESL varieties of English. Pride’s (1982) New Englishes provides a sociolinguistic and historical overview of New Englishes, but also dwells on their forms. Platt et al’s (1984) The New Englishes is probably the most

5 comprehensive statement on features of New Englishes. Shorter (journal articles) descriptive studies which highlight similarities between the New Englishes include Ahulu (1994a, b). In fact, Ahulu’s (1994a) paper is very suggestive in this regard: “How Ghanaian is ?” Descriptive studies with a continental scope include Schmied’s (1991) English in Africa Regional (within a continent) studies include Spencer’s (1991) The English Language in West Africa, Schmied’s (1989, 1991) English in East and Central Africa, and De Klerk’s (1996) Focus on Notable descriptions of national varieties in Africa include (Sey (1973), Tingley(1981), Adjaye (1987) and Gyasi (1991) on Ghanaian English, Jibril (1982), Kujore (1985) and Jowitt (1991) on , Mbangwana (1989) and Simo Bobda (1994a, b, c) on Cameroon English, Pemagbi (1995) on Sierra Leonean English, De Klerk (1996) on , Tripathi(1990) on Zambian English, Hocking’s (1978) on . In Asia, they include Nihalani et al.(1979) on , Platt and Weber (1980) on and on Malaysian Englishes, Lowenberg (1991) on . Apart from a few cases (e.g. Platt et al 1984, Ahulu 1994a,b, 1995) where the internatinonal nature of some features described is acknowledged, studies usually stress the national nature of the features. Thus, terms like Indianisms, Nigerianisms, Ghanaianisms, Cameroonianisms are common in the literature, often for features shared by almost all New Englishes. National and regional specificities manifest themselves mostly at the phonetic and phonological levels, due mostly to the influence of background languages. In lexis, various forms of borrowings are also, predictably, geographically bound, as English adapts itselfs to the sociocultural environments of the various recipient communities. But the other deviations from lexis, semantics, and from other levels of analysis generally cut astonishingly across large territories of the globe. The following is a representative sample of lexical and syntactic features found in almost all New Englishes on the planet.

6 Morphology • Deviant or unnecessary affix; a matured woman to fill this position (BrE mature) Everybody is welcomed pregnanted instalmental(ly)

Lexis In lexis, all New Englishes tend to have the same types of semantic shift, collectional extension, and derivation. In this regard, the data discussed in an earlier study (Simo Bobda 1994b) have been found to be reported almost everywhere else in former British colonies. But semantic extension is probably the most common and the most productive innovation process. Examples: • balance: → (also means) change • stay: → live e.g. I stay with my parents (Platt et al 1984:103) • to travel: → be away e.g. My father has travelled (Platt et al 1984:112).

Semantics and style Common semantic and stylistic features of New Englishes include the use of tautological terms, and reduplication. Return back, repeat again, walk on foot, just a mere / simple ---, can be able to, include ---- and so on, near at hand, only ---- alone (e.g. only God alone ---), to pool together, the reason is because, this perhaps may be, during the course of, sabbatical leave, write in black and white (cf Schmied 1991:87) are examples of tautological expressions. The use of intensifiers with inherent superlatives (e.g. very unique, perfect/excellent) are further examples. The use of more with words already marked for comparison (e.g. more better, more easier), an extreme violation of BrE grammar, can also be mentioned here. Reduplication is exemplified by the following data from Platt et al (1984:114):

• hot, hot coffee to go crying, crying We have many many such words

7 Syntax It is probably in syntax that the largest number of similarities across the New Englishes are found. The common features are presented below in synoptic form. Articles • Use of zero article for BrE “the”: She travelled to the city in company of her boyfriend. • Majority of the members did not attend the meeting (Ahulu 1994:11). • Use of zero article for BrE “a(n)”: The post of Deputy Director. He heard noise in the kitchen X started as teacher before he became chief (Ahulu 1994:12). • Use of “the” for zero article The both teams The last but not least He won the first prize for being punctual (Ahulu 1994:14) • Use of “one” for “a(n)” One old professor was always inviting me to his house (Platt et al 1994:46) Other determiners • use of much for many: Much difficulties • use of few for a few: It was a good thing that few parents volunteered to make donations He was kind enough to give me few oranges • use of some few or some certain for a few or certain some few people some certain mistakes • deviant order or juxtaposition of determiners: This two last years (Platt et al 1994:62) This my boss, that your boss, this our boss, these our bosses, those your bosses Prepositions and postpositions • omission: He picked me from my school at one o’clock. Fill this form in ink. • insertion: to request for sth, to advocate for sth, to heed to sb’s advice, to investigate into sth, to voice out one’s view, discuss about sth, to stress on sth, to emphasize on sth, to cope up with a difficulty, to meet up with a demand, to regret for an action, to comprise of (e.g. The book comprises of five chapters.)

8 • substitution: same like/with, such --- like, like I said, consist of (for consist in), true with (for true of), identical with (for identical to), to correspond with (for correspond to), to come out with (a solution), to round up (a meeting), typical with (for typical of), kind/generous/polite with sb, to result to, to culminate to, to accuse sb for, to charge sb for, to be convicted for. Verbs • Omission of 3rd person singular: He go to school (Platt et al 1994:62) This cater for most of the students (ibid) It seem that he has returned (Schmied 1991:66) • Ommision of past tense/past participle -ed: He was immediately rush to hospital. As far as I am concern • Person concord: It is I who is to blame • Number concord: There exists different types of contraception The opinions of my husband counts (occasional deviation) Many a member were disillusioned More than one person have agreed to do the job • Tense: Forms involving the hypothetical “were” not used: If he was God, he wouldn’t allow that to happen – Second conditional not used: They could have lived a happy life if they were not told... (BrE had not been told) (Schied 1991:66) – Simple future for Past future: He told us that he will come tomorrow. – Deviant future tense in temporal dependent clauses expressing futrity When Mum will come, ask her to ring me up – must have + past participle used for Future Perfect and for future time in temporal clauses By the end of the year, we must have completed the syllabus. (for will have...) I will only come when I must have finished my homework. – would + base form used for the future I would give a brief review of literature in the next chapter – idiomatic use of tenses not in conformity with BrE standards – It is high time I went home. • Use of universal question-tag “isn’t it?” or “not so?” I am your friend, isn’t it/not so? They will be very happy, isn’t it/not so? Nouns • Deviant plural marker in nominalized adjectives, abstract nouns and non counts, and some idiomatic usages: • faithfuls; embarrassments, inconveniences; equipments, furnitures, informations, luggages, ammunitious, advices; on holidays, in the heydays of, two dozens/hundreds/millions, a three-years-old child. • Deviant use of the indefinite article with noncounts

9 • an advice, a luggage, an information • Omission of plural marker, especially in spoken English A province is divided into district(s) (Platt et al 1984:59) English is one of the main subject(s) (ibid) Pronouns • “-selves” forms used for each other/one another We greeted ourselves They embraced themselves • “all what” used for “all that” All what I need is peace • use of redundant pronouns That’s what they came to look for it. • use of that (which for “whose” or of which/of whom There was a certain assignment that the teacher didn’t give us the marks. She took a responsibility which financial implications she did not know. Response to negative yes/no questions • (He isn’t good?) - Yes (= No, he isn’t) (You don’t know this, do you?) - Yes, I don’t (So you did not get what you wanted to buy?) - Yes (Schmied 1991:73) Word order • I and X for X and I I and John went there • Subject-verb order maintained in indirect questions I asked him what was his name. They don’t even know what is the matter. • Other instances of deviant word order: We are committed men and women to the cause of social justice Many Africans speak other languages than English and French Not only he took my money, but he also insulted me. Complex sentences • Deviant manipulation of conjunctions and prepositions in complex sentences: That is the man we were talking. The bag is too heavy that she needs help to carry it. Semantic shifts involving some function words • “as such” used for “therefore, consequently, as a result” You are late. As such, you can’t be allowed to enter. • “meanwhile” used for “while/whereas” The pupils did the exercise meanwhile the teacher was marking Kwasi is from Africa meanwhile Hong is from Asia. Dangling modifiers Running across the street, a bus hit him unconscious Disappointed with my school performance, I could not get any present from my father

10 As my principal, I know that I owe him respect.

As hinted above, the interest in the foregoing survey is not in the data, which is not new at all. But it is in the amazing similarities between varieties of English as far apart as Gambian or Ghanaian English on the one hand, and Sri Lankan or Singaporean English on the other. Why indeed do Ghanaians, Cameroonians, Indians, Indonesians all tend to use stranger for guest, balance for change, as such for therefore/consequently? Why do they all pluralize noncounts? Clearly, we are here before New Englishisms, not just Indianisms, Sri Lankanisms, Ghanaianisms, etc. There should be some explanation for these features beyond the influence of background languages, or sometimes even intralingual pressure often invoked. Some strategies are discussed below.

Some strategies

Coping with some confusable alternations There are several alternations in English, at various levels of analysis. For example, single or double consonant before a suffix beginning with a vowel in orthography (e.g. deference, pardoning vs occurrence, beginning); in- vs un-, -ity vs -ness in morphology (or inaccessible vs few), in syntax, etc. There are New Englishisms in these areas which result from ignorance of rules regulating the alternations in native English, when such rules exist. But New Englishisms abound mostly when the alternations are more or less arbitrary. I will discuss some of these arbitrary alternations in grammar and the way speakers of New Englishes cope with them. I will select, out of a multitude, the use of articles, the use or omission of “to” between some verbs and the following infinitive, the selection between verb plus to + infinitive and verb plus -ing forms. The arbitrary nature of the organization of language finds ample exemplification in the use of articles, the definite article in particular. The very fact that definite articles are used at all in English is arbitrary; Russian, Japanese and many Asian and African languages do not use them; other languages, such as French, Italian, Greek, use them almost systematically and produce structures equivalent to The marriage is a good thing, I like the bananas, etc.

11 Even when rules for the use or omission of the definite article exist in English they rest on no logic and prove very confusing. For example, the learner may understand, albeit not without difficulty, that the should be used when talking about buildings (e.g. Meet me at the prison) but not insitutions (e.g. I’ve been in prison for two months); he/she may somehow understand that the should be used with groups of states (e.g. the , the Netherlands); but it is difficult to understand why the should be used with the names of seas, oceans,and deserts (eg the Baltic, the Atlantic, the Kalahari) but not with the names of lakes and mountains (e.g. Lake Victoria, Mount Everest). The inconsistency of article usage in standard native English is matched by inordinate patterns of deviations in New Englishes resulting in the use of the zero article instead of the definite article, the use of the definite article instead of the zero article, etc, as shown above. There is no apparent logic underlying the distribution of “to” between a verb and the following infinitive. Standard native English thus has help somebody (to) do sth, allow/enable/permit somebody to do sth, and let/make sb / do sth. Speakers of New Englishes, as shown above, deviate inordinately to the patterns allow/enable/permit sb / do sth, and let/make sb to do sth. To teach the selection between verb plus to + infinitive, and verb plus -ing forms, grammar books seem to have no better explanation than to list the verbs which fall in each category. Thus, choose, decidde, forget, promise, hope, try, want, etc. take to plus infinitive, while like, love, enjoy, finish, stop, typically take the verb plus -ing form, although, confusingly, would like, would love take the to plus base form (ctr I love going out and I would love to go out) A parallel re-organization in the New Englishes allows succeed to (probably encouraged by manage to) on the one hand and promise plus V-ing and intend plus V-ing for example, on the other hand (eg. I promise / intend going there there today). Speakers of New Englishes also cope with inordinate alternations by deviating in the direction of only one of the potential forms. Thus, divergences involving aspect only yield

12 a deviant progressive as in The task is proving very difficult, I am having no money, The shirt is costing too much. The confusion between will and would, from the literature available on New Englishes, almost always leads to the production of deviant would, for will, never the reverse. The existence in English of a number of confusable pairs tends to occasion the selection of only one member of the pair for the two in New Englishes as in the examples of Table 2.

Table 2: Some New Englishisms involving confusable words confusable words word often selected for both usages or meanings accept, agree accept advice, advise advice (n. and v.) all together, altogether all together beside, besides besides come out with, come up with come out with convince, persuade convince it’s, its it’s pick, pick up pick refuse, deny refuse round off, round up round off pain, ache/hurt pain perpetuate, perpetrate perpetuate portable, potable portable substitute, replace replace sometimes, sometime sometimes temporal, temporary temporal wait on, wait for wait on Factors which determine the spread of one given item to the total exclusion of the other in most cases remain quite difficult to determine. According to most theories of language acquisition, one would expect the more common term, or the normally earlier acquired term, to supplant the other. This does happen in a number of cases. But the choice of would for will, or substitute for replace definitely constitutes an exception to the principle.

13 Coping with some seemingly odd aspects of English Some aspects of English look semantically odd, and a common strategy in most New Englishes is to rectify or logicalize them. This phenomenon of rectification can be seen in prepositional usage, in the perception of plurality, and in some idioms.

Prepositional usage Many cases of deviant prepositional usage in New Englishes result from overgeneralization or some deviant analogy. Some of Gyasi’s (1991:29-30) examples, interesting because they are found in most New Englishes, can thus be analysed as shown in table 3.

Table 3: Some analogical preposition deviations and their possible causes: Deviant usage Possible analogy We have requested for more books request (n) for sth I wish to stress/emphasize upon/on this point stress/emphasis (n) upon/on Everyone is free to voice out his opinion speak out (e.g. the truth) He advocated for the setting up of special counts plead for The committee comprises of three men and a woman is made up of Children should heed to their parents’ advice listen to investigate into investigatation / enquiry into But many other cases of deviant prepositional usage result from speakers’ attempt to re- interpret and use prepositions in what they perceive to be their literal meanings. Locative prepositions are very interesting illustrations. For example, to in leave to Douala (for BrE leave for) is seen as a better expression of direction, or movement to Douala. The expressions in the bus, in the plane, in the train to denote the fact that one is “inside” a vehicle seem more expressive than BrE on the bus, on the plane, on the train. Speakers also perceive to as a preposition denoting transformation or change to be more suggestive in culminate to, result to than BrE culminate in, result in. Causal prepositions are equally quite interesting. Speakers of New Englishes reproach/congratulate/accuse/charge sb for sth. With reproach, BrE accepts both with and for. With congratulate, speakers use for, but Standard British English normally accept only on. Native Englishes use accuse/charge sb of sth. On logical grounds,

14 for is more appealing in all these usages as an expression of cause. This appeal is felt in native English since AmE speakers congratulate sb on sth, and both BrE and AmE have reproachful for. Indeed, English prepositional (and postpositional) usage is very confusing, and most New Englishisms result from speakers’ attempt to make sense out of the confusion. There is little wonder that the one-million word corpus of Cameroon English discussed above shows no occurrence of a native English oddity--viewed by non-native speakers--like the expression to stand down, to which step down is preferred. Usages in the two main varieties of native English, BrE and AmE offer further evidence that the prepositional system of English is arbitrary and confusing. Indeed, BrE and AmE differ in several prepositional usages, including the ones in table 4:

Table 4: Some differences in prepositinal usage between British English and American English BrE AmE to fill in a form to fill out a form A is different from B. (Also) ... different than B Ten past eight. (also) ten after eight Ten to eight. (also) ten of eight Is Mary at home? Is Mary home The symposium begins on April 1 The symposium begins April 1 The library is open from Monday to Saturday The library is open Monday through Saturday The plane departed from Dusseldorf The plane departed Dusseldorf. I haven’t seen him for weeks (also) ... in weeks Have you talked to him? Have you talked with him? We protested against the measure. We protested the measure John wrote to Mary yesterday. John wrote Mary Are you in the team? Are you on the team? I’ll do it at the weekend. I’ll do it over the weekend I visited my friends. I visited with my friends. He lives behind the building (also) ... in back of the building He looked out of the window He looked out the window Sources: Trudgill and Hannah (1985), Crystal (1988), and Gramley and Patzold (1992).

15 Plurality One of the greatest divergences between New Englishes and established varieties in their perception of plurality lies in their classification of nouns as countable or uncountable. Nouns which are considered countable in native Englishes are generally also perceived as such in New Englishes. But many uncountable and even abstract nouns become countable in colonial Englishes and take a plural marker. The most common examples are: advice, correspondence, damage, embarrassment, equipment, fruit, furniture, inconvenience, information, hair (on one’s head), jewelry, luggage, mail, proof (evidence), property, staff, work. This is yet another attempt by speakers of New Englishes to put “their own” order into a classification which is arbitrary. The above list of words denote referents which they consider separate or separable items: instances or situations of embarrassment or inconvenience could justifiably be considered plural; pieces of advice, correspondence (letters), furniture, information could equally be seen as plural. Several pieces of evidence argue for the pluralization of luggage, information, hair, etc. First, speakers of other languages (e.g. French and most other Romance languages, and German) consider most of these nouns as countable and mark them for plurality. Examples: French conseil ~, conseils, information ~ informations, cheveu ~ cheveux; German der Rat ~die Ratschlage, die Auskunft ~die Auskunfte. Secondly, some of the words, with slightly different shades of meaning, take the plural form; e.g. hairs (on other parts of the body). Thirdly, in the evolution of the language, some of the words are changing to the category of countables. For example, fruits is now an acceptable variant of fruit in the plural. As Platt et al (1984:52) rightly note, it is hardly convincing to attribute the tendency of using uncountable nouns with the plural form mainly to the influence of background languages. There are background languages where these nouns are treated as uncountable nouns and yet the speakers still use an “s” with their equivalents in English (ibid). The authors of New Englishes (ibid) equally think that “overgeneralisation” is not quite the term for this phenomenon. They argue that speakers do not just mark a noun for plural whenever it refers

16 to more than one thing or person. Their strategy actually consists in reclassifying as countables certain nouns which are considered uncountable elsewhere. This reclassification is not inordinate since it does not affect such words as mud, gold, petrol (Plat et al 1984:52, after K.A. Sey). Closely related to the pluralization of noncounts in New Englishes is, from this phenomenon, the use of the indefinite article when the singular notion of these nouns is intended. For example, an advice, an information, a staff are common usages in New Englishes, instead of native English a piece of advice, a piece of information, a member of staff. Final examples of divergence between New Englishes and native Englishes in their perception of plurality can be seen in certain types of subject-verb concord. Concord with the expression “more than one” is one example out of a multitude. In native Englishes, this expression is associated with a singular verb; e.g. More than one worker is absent today. The logic of this type of agreement can seriously be questioned, since the subject is clearly plural. It is this clear idea of plurality which makes speakers of New Englishes opt for a plural verb. Another example involves concord with many a --- plus verb. Standard BrE usage requires a singular verb (e.g. Many a worker has agreed to the proposal) while in New Englishes, the plural is used (e.g. Many a worker(s) have agreed ...).

Coping with redundancy One common strategy among speakers of New Englishes is the dropping of redundant forms. The frequent dropping of plural, third person singular and past tense markers can be seen as a manifestation of this strategy. Platt et al (1984:49-50), understandably, have found that this kind of dropping is more frequent in speech --especially informal speech--and among speakers with little English-medium education. It is also more common in final consonant clusters than in other contexts. Referring to plural marking, Platt et al (1984:48) think that the dropping may have something to do with pronunciation since speakers of New

17 Englishes are known to resist to the pronunciation of final “s” in words like cups, tourists, risks, subjects, accents. They also think that it may be due to interference from the background languages (e.g. Chinese) where plurality is not marked, but inferred from the context. To account for the dropping of the third person and past tense markers, similar invocation of pronunciation and background languages may be made. The explanations are quite convincing. But while basically accepting them, I further contend that dropping in the above cases is, at least, encouraged by the fact that the markers affected are redundant. Plurality is semantically very important, but it can almost always be inferred from the contexts. The same argument goes for past tense marking. As for third person singular marking, it is not only redundant, being predictable from the context in most cases, but also it has no semantic value. In fact, further evidence that the forms discussed are redundant comes from the existence of words that remain invariable in the plural, the third person singular and the past tense (e.g. sheep, can, cut, respectively). Their invariable forms do not make them less meaningful. In other words, two sheep, she can go, He cut the cake yesterday, respectively, contain as much information on plurality, person and tense as two cats, she does go and He cooked the cake yesterday. Indeed, a large number of deviations in New Englishes involve the elimination of redundant features. As a further example, in pospositional usage, “fill out a form” for BrE “fill in a form” and AmE “fill out a form” is quite interesting. Considering the meaning of “fill” in isolation, “in” seems redundant in the BrE form, while “out” in the AmE expression, taken literally, is difficult to account for.

Conclusion The Corpus of Cameroon English, even at its earliest stage, offers abundant evidence of indigenization of English. A comparison of the findings with those from other African and

18 Asian countries shows that a vast majority of features, mostly morphological and syntactic, are shared by all the Englishes of former British and American colonies, and should more accurately be termed New Englishisms. The fact that there are many similarities between New Englishes is interested in several ways. First, it shows the limitations of the source language interference often invoked in the literature. Secondly it suggests that speakers of new Englishes, through English, restructure the world along similar lines (cf for example, the classification of nouns as countable and uncountable). But above all, it calls for further research into New Englishisms. The ICE referred to above is very useful in this perspective, as a basis not only for comparing the New Englishes with one another, but also with mother-tongue Englishes and other learner Englishes in the world.

References Adjaye, Sophia A. (1987). “The Pronunciation of English in With Specific Reference to Speakers of Akan, Eve and Ga”. University of London: Dissertation. Ahulu, Samuel (1994a). “How Ghanaian is Ghanaian English?”, English Today 38, Vol. 10:2. pp Ahulu, Samuel (1994b). “Styles of ”. English Today 40, Vol. 40, pp. 10- 16. Ahulu, Samuel (1995). “Variation in the use of complex verbs in ”. English Today 42, Vol. 11:2 pp 28-34. Chisanga, Theresa and N.M. Kamwangamalu (1997). “Owning the Other Tongue: The English Language in Southern Africa”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 89-99. Crystal, David (1985). The English Language. London: Essex. DeKlerk, V (ed.) (1997). Focus on South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gramley, Stephan and Kurt-Michael Patzold (1992). A Survey of . London: Routledge. Gyasi, Ibrahim K. (1991). “Aspects of English in Ghana”. English Today 26, 1991 pp. 26- 31. Hockings, B.D.W. (1978). All What I Was Taught and Other Mistakes. Nairobi: OUP. Jowitt, David (1991). Nigerian English Usage: : Longman. Kachru, Braj B. (1986). The Alchemy of English. The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-native Englishes. Oxford: Perganon. Jibril, Munzali (1982). “Phonological Variation in Nigerian English”. Ph.D Thesis, University of Lancater. Kujore, Obafemi (1985). English Usage: Some Notable Nigerian Variations - Ibadan: Evans.Lowenberg, Peter H. (1991). “Variation in Malaysian English: the pragmatics of Languages in Contact”. In Cheshire, Jenny (ed 1991). English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: CUP, pp. 364-375.

19 Mbangwana, Paul N (1989). “Flexibility of lexical usage in Cameroon.”. In Garcia, Ofelia and Otheguy Ricardo. berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.319-333. McKay, Sandra (1992). Teaching English Overseas: An Introduction. Oxford: OUP. Nihalani, P., R. Tongue and P. Hosali (1979). Indian and British English. Delhi: OUP. Pemagbi, Joe (1995). “Using Newspaper and Radio in English Language Teaching: The Experience”. English Teaching Forum Vol. 33:3, pp. 53-54. Platt, John and H. Weber (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions. Kuala Lumpur: OUP. Platt, John, W. Weber and M.L. Ho (1984). The New Englishes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pride, J. B. (ed)(1982) . New Englishes. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Odusina, Olu and B. O.Ikegulu (1990). “A Survey of teachers’ perceptions of domesticating English in Nigeria”, Journal of Studies in Curriculum, Vol.1, No 1, pp.10-17. Schmied, Josef (1991). English in Africa: An Introduction Essex: Longman. Schmied, Josef (ed. 1989, 1991) English in East and Central Africa 1 & 2. Bayreuth African Studies Series. Sey, Koffi A. (1991). Ghanaian English: An Exploratory Survey London: Macmillan. Simo Bobda, Augustin (1994a). Aspects of Cameroon English Phonology. Bern: Peter Lang. Simo Bobda, Augustin (1994b). “Lexical innovation in Cameroon English”. 13:2, pp. 245-260. Simo Bobda, Augustin (1994c). Watch Your English: A Collection of Remedial Lessons on English Usage. Yaoundé: AMA. Spencer, John (ed. 1971). The English Language in West Africa. London: Longman. Strevens, Peter (1982). “The Localized forms of English”. In Kachru, Braj B. (ed. 1982). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Swan, Michael and Bernard Smith (eds) (1987). Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems. Cambridge: CUP. Tingley, C. (1981). “Deviance in the English of Ghanaian Newspapers”. English WorldWide 2:1, pp. 39-62. Tiomajou, David 91995). “The Cameroon English Corpus Project”. In Bamgbose, Ayo, Ayo Banjo, and Andrew Thomas(eds). New Englishes: A West African Perspective. Ibadan: Mosuro, pp.349-366. Tripathi, P.D. (1990). “English in ”. English Today 23, July 1990, pp. 34-38. Trudgill, Peter and Jean Hannah (1985). International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. 2nd Edn. London: Edward Arnold.

20