A STUDY OF OVERGENERALIZATION ERRORS IN THE PRONUNCIATION OF SOME ENGLISH WORDS

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikaodi Anyanwu

Abstract This study reports the findings of a study conducted on intralingual-generated errors in the pronunciation of some English words. In order to achieve the objective of this study, the researchers randomly selected thirteen pairs of English words. Each pair has words that have some parts written alike as far as the orthography of English is concerned. Some three hundred and seventy two (372) respondents were purposively sampled across the states in and elicited to read (thus pronounce) the thirteen (13) pairs of English words. The responses were recorded using a digital audio recorder. Thence, the utterances were transcribed to establish congruence with the expected response as found in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (and the talking version). It was found that an overwhelming majority of the respondents overgeneralized the pronunciation of the words in each of the pairs. This indicates the manifestation of intralingual induced errors in the pronunciation of the pairs. Thus, it was recommended that users of English as a second should be exposed to proper models via several means. Key Words: Overgeneralization, Intralingual Errors, .

Introduction 154

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015

English is a in Nigeria. As a result, a lot of works has been done on the inconsistencies that exist in the pronunciation of English words in sentences by non-native speakers of English (Akande, 2009; Alabi, 2008; Bobda, 1995; Dolyphene, 1995; Ilolo, 2011; Jibril, 2000; Ngulube, 2013; Tagaki & Mann, 1995; Udofot, 2007). The emphasis of most of these works is on interlingual errors. That is, the influence of the phonologies of other on the phonology of English. Such interference leads to the use of English segmental phonemes and suprasegmentals by non- native users in such a way that depicts apparent deviation from the Received Pronunciation. Some scholars, for example Soneye (2009), posit that a non-native speaker of English can produce utterances in English without the manifestation of significant other language interference on the . The spoken English of such speakers may not necessarily be native-like in accent but the pronunciation of the phonemes is done without apparent trace of a speaker's first or second language. But then, such speakers may as well exhibit deviant pronunciations that are not other-languages- induced as far as English language is concerned. These errors are intralingual in nature. This means that the pronunciation errors in this category are errors generated by the existence of the way some word(s) that appear to have physical orthographic semblance with another word is/are pronounced. Many studies have not been done to investigate this phenomenon. As a result, the chief aim of this study is to investigate the manifestation of intralingual pronunciation errors in the spoken English of selected literate users of English in Nigeria. It is envisioned that the findings of this study will not only contribute to existing knowledge on the subject matter but also propel further studies.

155

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015

Review of Related Literature Studies have been conducted on the proficiency of non-native speakers of English in the pronunciation of English segmental phonemes and non-segmental phonological structures. For instance, in their study on the limit of extended naturalistic exposure on the perpetual mastery of English /r/ and /l/ by adult Japanese adult learners of English, Tagaki and Mann (1995:379) found: “… that while extensive exposure can improve performance, perfect mastery may not be achieved.” This could be as a result of fossilization or other factors that hinge upon age. In his work on the phonologies of and Cameroonian English, Bobda (1995:249) reports: “… the English language in predictably has ethnic variations. For example, some tribes in the Northern Province replace RP /ǝʊ/ with /ʊ/ in certain words…” In the case of , Dolyphene (1995:31) submits that the Asante who speak English “… pronounce 'l' for 'r' as in the word 'problem' pronounced ploblem; the Ga speaker pronounces words like 'must' and 'bus' as mos and bos; and the Ewe speaker pronounces 'let' and 'late' indifferently as let.” What is manifested as a result of the influence of Japanese, Cameroonian and Ghanaian languages on the phonology of English also applies to so many languages in the outer and expanding circles of the English language. Udofot (2007:40) stated that: many Nigerians tend to replace the sound// with /t/, then, /ð/ with /d/ and the sounds /ǝ/, /ɜ: / are replaced with /e/. This is not unconnected with the fact that almost all Nigerian languages lack //, /ð/, /ǝ/ and /ɜ: / in their phonologies. As a result, available sounds within the Nigerian language in question, which may or may not have proximity value to the sounds absent, are used in their stead. Furthermore, the study conducted by Akande (2009:56) “…

156

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015 revealed that Yoruba learners of English had problem with, among others, the pronunciation of English fricatives, the lax vowels and central vowels.” Some of the phonemes include: /v/, /z/, /ʃ/, /ǝ/, /ɜ:/, /˄/ etc. In her own study on sentence stress in educated Isoko English, Ilolo (2011:87) discovered that “… weak forms of grammatical words are retained and other variants used…” All these point to the fact that non- native spoken English, in most cases, is prone to error. These errors are basically caused by non-English language interference. In spite of the adverse impact of the phonologies of non- English languages on the English language, exposure, shaping and other spoken English performance enhancing strategies can make a non-native speaker attain competence in spoken English with few or no manifestation of non-English language interference. However, Ngulube (2013:20) cautions: “In the Nigerian situation, 'poverty of stimulus', that is lack of contact with native speakers does not necessitate adopting Received Pronunciation as target.” But then, proficiency in spoken English with international mutual intelligibility can be attained.

Most of the studies on the phonology of English as a second language underscore interlingual interference. However, varieties of native spoken English can as well prompt the user of English as a second language to pronounce words and structures larger than words in ways that flout the benchmark set by Received Pronunciation. Roach (2009:4) counsels: “… there are many different accents in England, but the range becomes very much wider if the accent of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland … are taken into account.” In consonance with this, Jibril (2000:411) asserts: “A study of the historical evolution of Nigerian English reveals interesting 157

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015 phonetic and phonological relics which are both indicative of the past influence of certain categories of missionary and other teachers and also sociolinguistically informative variables.” The study carried out by Jibril reveals that the influence of the spoken English accent of Irish missionaries has significant influence on the spoken English of some Nigerian speakers of English who may not necessarily have mother tongue interference. Thus, it can be stated that there are some spoken English related problems that are not as a result of the interference of the mother tongue of the second language user of English on the phonology of English. Soneye (2009:47) states: “English spelling, as it is, leads to reading failure …” This is not dissociated from the fact that there is an arbitrary relationship and, by extension, inconsistencies between English sounds and letters. This means that there is no clear-cut relationship between the orthography of English and English phonemes. In the light of this, Finegan (2012:83) reports: “The playwright George Bernard Shaw was a keen advocate of spelling reform and highlighted the problems in establishing correspondence between English sounds and spelling…” For this reason, such inconsistencies can generate mispronunciation of some English words. When this occurs, one should not blame the English as a second language user's mother tongue as interfering with the phonology of English. In their submission on the lack of correspondence between English orthography and the pronunciation of English words, Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams (2011:559) state: “… English has a morphophonemic orthography. To read English correctly, morphophonemic knowledge is required.” In order to justify this, the significant differences in the pronunciation of the letters underlined in the following words were provided: divine vs. divinity, serene vs. serenity, sane vs. 158

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015 sanity etc. O'Grady, Archibald and Katamba (2011:542) provide some cases in which English orthography provides a single spelling for roots with different pronunciation. Typical examples are: bomb where the underlined is realized as zero /ᴓ/ and bombard where the underlined is realized as /b/; impress where the underlined are realized as /s/ and impression where the underlined is realized as /ʃ/ etc. Thus Finegan (2012:84) concludes: “A given word part may be pronounced differently depending on its adjacent sound and stress pattern.” In respect of stress pattern, each of the words import, convert, refuse etc can be pronounced in two different ways in each case depending on the stress pattern and the category of word in question. Suffice it to say that the same word could be pronounced in different ways based on the principle of free variation in the context of its weak or strong form and by extension geographical native English variety. In most cases, the adequate procedural and declarative knowledge of English are learned in schools. Thus, of interest in this paper is pronunciation errors generated by the influence of how the part of a word is pronounced by the pronunciation of other words that have parts that have physical orthographic semblance with it – but need not be pronounced the way it is pronounced. This is thus hinged on the principle of overgeneralization. According to Fromkin et al (20111:587), the manifestation of overgeneralization by a child “… shows that the child has acquired the regular rules but has not yet learned that there are exceptions.” Simply put, Denham and Lobeck (2013:33) define overgeneralization as the “… application of grammatical rules more broadly than it is generally applied.” In our own context overgeneralization involves the use of a phonological strategy available to an individual in new contexts they assume are similar to the 159

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015 known context. It has been highlighted earlier in this paper that there is an arbitrary relationship between English sounds and letters. Thus, this paper's illustration of overgeneralization is based on the submission of Finegan (2012:83) on the words woman and women: “… - the letter that does not change. It also represents two sounds (in women like the of wood and in women like the of win.” Thus, when an individual pronounces the in women as /ʊ/ because that is how the in woman is pronounced, they have overgeneralized. Overgeneralization in pronunciation and cognate errors may occur due to fossilization or negative attitude of non native speakers of English. Thus, Spada and Lightbown (2010:119) assert: “When they are able to make themselves understood to their teachers and their classmates with inaccurate language and when there are no L2 peers to serve as models, they may be little motivation to move beyond their current level of language use.” Some newscasters, teachers, home video stars and other literate Nigerians – who supposed to be models – pronounce English words with errors caused by overgeneralization and not necessarily mother tongue interference. In consequence, a study on intralingual errors in the pronunciation of some English words by literate users of English as a second language is apt.

Scope, Theoretical Framework and Methodology The primary objective of this study is to investigate the manifestation of intralingual errors in the spoken English of selected literate users of English as a second language in Nigeria. As a result, the focus is on the pronunciation errors generated by the incorrect pronunciation of some words in English as against mother tongue interference. Even though Richards (1985) reports that intralingual error can be in the 160

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015 forms of overgeneralization, ignorance of rules restrictions, incomplete application of rules and false hypothesis, this study uses overgeneralization as the basis for analysis.

The theoretical framework of this study is hinged on the principle of overgeneralization. According to Richards (1985:48), “overgeneralization covers instances where learners create a deviant structure on the basis of their experience of other structures in the target language.” Thus, the approach in this paper is based on non-contrastive error analysis – intralingual error analysis – with overgeneralization as the focus. The population of this study is all the literate Nigerian users of English as a second language. As a result, purposive random sampling was used to select three hundred and seventy two (372) respondents across the states in Nigeria. The subjects were elicited to read (thus pronounce) some thirteen (13) pairs of English words. The responses were recorded using a digital audio recorder. Thence, the utterances were transcribed to establish congruence with the expected response as found in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (in the written – broad transcription – and talking headwords formats. Simple percentage was used as the statistical tool for analysis.

Results Table 1: Intralingual errors in the pronunciation of English words

161

Clifford Irikefe Gbeyonron & Esther Chikodi Anyanwu AJELLS Vol. 6 No 1, 2015

162