faculty of arts · certification onah, oluchukwu chinyere with the registration number...
TRANSCRIPT
-
PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN INTERCOMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN
Ebere Omeje
ONAH, OLUCHUKWU CHINYERE
PG/MA/11/58510
PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN INTER-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN
CONTEXT.
Ebere Omeje Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
i
ONAH, OLUCHUKWU CHINYERE
CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN
Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
-
ii
PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN INTER-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CONTEXT: THE NIGERIAN
CONTEXT.
BY
ONAH, OLUCHUKWU CHINYERE
PG/MA/11/58510
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA.
MAY, 2016.
-
iii
APPROVAL PAGE
This thesis has been approved for the department of linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian languages,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
By
_______________ ______________
Dr. C.U Agbedo External examiner
Supervisor
________________ _______________
Internal examiner Prof. R.I Okorji
Head of department
__________________
Prof. P.U Okpoko
Dean
-
iv
CERTIFICATION
Onah, Oluchukwu Chinyere with the registration number PG/MA/11/58510 a of postgraduate student in the department of linguistics, Igbo and other Nigerian languages, university of Nigeria, Nsukka has satisfactorily completed the requirement for the award of Masters Degree in linguistics. The work embodied in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part or whole for any other diploma or degree of this or any other university.
_______________________ ________________
Dr. C.U Agbedo (Supervisor) Name of candidate
Date: _______________ Date:_____________
-
v
DEDICATION
To my family and all peace-loving people of all races
-
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to God for His goodness. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr. C.U Agbedo for his insightful advice from the beginning of the formulation of my topic, through the writing, to the final writing of the dissertation. I also wish to express my sincere gratitude and deepest appreciation to the head of department, prof. R.I Okorji for his words of encouragement, patience and suggestion during the research period.
Special thanks to my darling husband, whose emotional, moral and financial support were the greatest source of my strength throughout my academic programme in this university.
Finally, I am also grateful to my course mate who shared their knowledge and ideas in this work.
-
vii
ABSTRACT
This research seeks to study the cultural communication norms in the use of
English and Nigerian languages with the aim of pointing out their similarities,
differences and how the wrong use of these languages can lead to pragmatic
failures. It adopts the theoretical framework of intercultural pragmatics. The
findings show that cultural communication norms in the use of English and
Nigerian languages pay attention to the recognition of titles and meticulous
address of names and personalities; and that political and social class
distinctions are consciously recognized and respected. Equally, there is great
respect for the populace who constitute a society. Furthermore, the study
observes that while adhering to the cultural communication norms in the use of
English and Nigerian languages, the cultural communication norms in the use of
Nigerian languages show the use of more title names which are drawn from the
traditions of the people of a given society than what is obtainable in the use of
English language. This makes it a case that the use of English language titles
such as chief, sir, etc, to refer to, or address persons is in the Nigerian setting
considered inadequate in the cultural communicative norms of Nigerian
languages. Finally, the study observes that there are instances of wrong use of
language which brought about pragmatic failure. These are observed to be as a
result of the making of ambiguous statements, existence of lexical gaps in some
grammatical constructions, poor use of high-sounding lexemes and even the use
of non-existing or unidentifiable lexemes or vocabularies, poor grammatical
expressions in relation to subject-verb concord and tautologies.
-
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page - - - - - - - - - - - i
Approval Page - - - - - - - - - - ii
Certification- - - - - - - - - - iii
Dedication - - - - - - - - - - - iv
Acknowledgement- - - - - - - - - v
Abstract - - - - - - - - - - - vi
Table of Contents- - - - - - - - - - xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study- - - - - - - 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem- - - - - - - 5
1.3 Objective of the Study - - - - - - - 6
1.4 Research Method - - - - - - - - 6
1.5 Scope of the Study- - - - - - - - 7
1.6 Significance of the Study- - - - - - - 7
1.7 Limitation of the Study- - - - - - - - 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Literature Review - - - - - - - - 9
2.2 Theoretical Review - - - - - - - 18
-
ix
2.3 Empirical Review- - - - - - - - - 23
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design- - - - - - - - - 24
3.2 Area of the Study- - - - - - - - - 24
3.3 Population of the Study- - - - - - - - 24
3.4 Instrumentation- - - - - - - - - 24
3.5 Sampling Procedure- - - - - - - - 25
3.6 Method of Data Collection - - - - - - 25
3.7 Method of Data Analysis- - - - - - - 25
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENSTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.0 Data Analysis - - - - - - - - 26
4.1 Linguistic Domain- - - - - - - - 26
4.1.1 Use of person Deixis- - - - - - - - 26
4.1.2 Use of Obscure Lexical Items- - - - - - - 29
4.1.3 Use of Ambiguous Expressions- - - - - - 32
4.2 Lexical Gaps- - - - - - - - - 34
4.3 Cognitive Domain- - - - - - - - 35
4.4 Social and Cultural Domain- - - - - - - 35
4.4.1 Recognition of titles and Meticulous Address of Names and
Personality- - - - - - - - - - 36
-
x
4.4.2 Political and Social Class Distinction- - - - - - 38
4.4.3 Respect for the Populace who Constitute a Society- - - 40
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary- - - - - - - - - - 42
5.2 Conclusion -- - - - - - - - - 42
-
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Communicative action refers to the interpersonal uses of language in everyday
context involving the exchange of information which has been acquired through
sensory experience. This ‘conversational exchange’ as Ward haugh (2006) calls
it usually takes place within certain contexts. It could be in the classroom,
hostel, family, church, town meetings, board meetings, seminars, traditional
events, cooperate events, etc. It could be among friends, villagers, business
colleagues, farm hall meeting and presidential address, courtesy call, among
others.
Hence, we could say that these exchanges are situated within contexts.
These contexts could be situational or cultural based. In whichever context,
language should be used appropriately to convey meaning and achieve certain
goals and purposes. However, when we fail to achieve the intended goal as a
result of inappropriate use (may be as a result of use of language out of context)
we can misfire. In other words, one can implicate something else rather than
what he/she actually intended to say. People use language to achieve or perform
certain goals. Finegan (2008) captures such purposes in the following:
People use language principally as a tool to do things: request a
favour, make a promise, report a piece of news, give directions,
offer a greeting, seek information, invite someone to dinner, and
perform hundreds of other ordinary verbal actions of everyday life.
Sometimes the things we do with language have serious
consequences: propose marriage, declare a mistrial, and swear to
tell the truth, fire an employee and so on… Knowing a language is
not simply a matter of knowing how to encode a message and
-
2
transmit it to a second party who then decodes it in order to
understand what we intended to say (282).
Using words to do things have been described as speech acts, thus, when we say
words we are actually doing things or performing one act or the other. This
concept has been elaborated in Austin’s work entitled “How to do things with
words”. However, it is not all the time that we succeed in doing what we
intended with our words. In other words, we may have the intention of
producing a particular communicative effect with our words but end up
producing another. Hence, that speech act has been employed wrongly.
Richards, Platt, and Platt (1992) note that wrong communication effects can
arise as a result of speaker’s faulty use of speech acts or any of the rules of
speaking.
Furthermore, Finegan (2008) observes that if grammatical competence is
all that is needed to make correct sentences, then every sentence would have a
fixed interpretation regardless of the context and situation of use. This brings us
to the issue of competence and performance, langue and parole, as proposed by
Noam Chomsky (1957) and Ferdinand de Saussure (1976) respectively.
Performance and parole may suggest communicative competences.
Grammatical knowledge does not confer on a speaker of language competence
in the use of the language. Knowledge of grammar is required in language
communication; there is also need to be competent in the actual use of language
in interaction. Prominence is also given to knowledge of cultural norms and
nuances associated with language use. For instance, in English, if a man tells a
woman, “I love you”, it then follows that he is ready to marry that woman, but a
non-native speaker of English who does not know the cultural norms associated
with love may use ‘love’ when he actually intended to say ‘like’.
Pragmatic failure which is also called pragmatic error, according to Richards,
Platt and Platt (1992) is a communicative situation whereby an interlocutor
-
3
produces a wrong communicative effect as a result of inappropriate use of
speech acts or violation of rules of speaking.
This could be referred to as social miscommunication arising mostly from
inadequate knowledge of cultural nuances that guide the use of a particular
language. If a native speaker of Igbo does not acquaint himself with the cultural
nuances associated with English, for example, and tells an English “your life”
when he sneezes, he has only transferred Igbo /cultural norms into English. This
could elicit humour or some negative consequences like a white boss who
handed his driver over to the police for saying “your life” when he sneezed. The
Igbo driver meant to be polite to his superior while the English boss took it to be
a threat to his life (Agbedo, 2012).
Again, an Igbo native speaker speaking English may wrongly say, “sorry”
to a friend that accidentally spilled his cup of tea, when he actually intended to
say, “It is a pity”. He is only trying to carry over the Igbo ‘ndo’ to English. This
kind of wrong transfers is done under interlanguage studies. However, our
sociolinguistic study in this regard derives specifically from the inter-cultural
aspects of language use whereby non-native speakers’ of English carry over
norms and nuances in the culture into English (for example, from Igbo to
English). Hence, cross-cultural awareness, in other words, “cultural
competence’ as Kramsch (1991) calls it, should also be the focus of second
language teaching and learning. This means that culture should be taught
alongside the target language. Kramsch further notes that cultural competence
“can best be developed in a structured learning environment, where conscious
parallels can be drawn, where language can be explicitly linked to its meaning
in a particular socio-cultural and historical context where disparate linguistic or
cultural phenomena can be brought together and attached to more abstract
principles of both base (C1) and target (C2) language and culture” (229).
Language and grammar must be made to function appropriately in
communication and interaction. Gee (2011) refers to this as, “Grammar as it
-
4
functions in communication and social interaction”(13) He observes that
Halliday and Mathiessen (2004) contain a detailed analysis of functional
grammar, that is, how grammar is being put to use to function effectively in
society.
Competence is the actual use of language in society based on context and
cultural factors are what set the sociolinguists apart from the formal linguists.
Agbedo (2007) harps on the role of sociolinguists in communicative language
teaching. He states that:
This social approach to linguistic theorisations and descriptions
perhaps explains the heavy reliance of language teachers on the
grammarian to provide the description of language from which the
content of language teaching courses can be drawn. The implication
is that such descriptions have not yielded the kind of
communicative content required until the recent theoretical shift of
emphasis in language pedagogy that favours a type of syllabus
which makes ample provision for the learning of communicative
competence (341).
Agbedo further explores the crucial role which sociolinguistics stands to
play in the current trend in linguistic description towards what might be called
Communicative Functionalism. Thus, he discusses it against the backdrop that
“the teaching of language as a social behaviour involves an understanding for
just how language is used to communicate in society whose language is being
taught” (15).
From the foregoing, we understand that various societies that make use of
language do so within the shared and generally known norms and values which
any new learner of a second language must also imbibe to communicate
effectively in that given language. Understanding language in use for various
contextual uses is very crucial to effective communication in society. Halliday
(1967) cited in Agbedo (2007) directs the focus of linguistic researchers to pay
-
5
attention to “characterizing language as an instrument of social communication
and extending the scope of grammar to cover not just the internal patterns of
language in use”(242). Sociolinguists lay much emphasis on functionalism in
language use. Agbedo(2007) asserts:
In sociolinguistics and ethnolinguistics, we emphasize the point
that using language for communicative purpose means more than
just using language forms correctly. The context in which language
is used is extremely relevant to linguistic interaction between
groups and individuals. This context is equally structured and has a
rule system so that the competent language user will have to apply
this rule system as well in order to be able to communicate
adequately (243).
Social aspects of using language appropriately in communicative contexts are
well expounded in Dell Hyme’s (1988) Ethnography of Communication.
Davies (1991) asserts that the “notion of communicative competence reflects a
growing awareness of the importance of pragmatic knowledge in achieving
mastery of a second language” (207).
We intend to x-ray such inter-cultural failures in the English speeches of
politicians, government officials and public figures who are native speakers of
the Nigerian indigenous languages. Finegan (2008) observes that “actions that
are carried out through language are called speech acts, and a surprisingly large
number of reports in newspapers are reports of speech acts” (283). Hence, it is
our intention to harvest these speech acts from the media and analyze them
within the theoretical framework of pragmatics, (pragmatic failures) and
intercultural communication .
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Language in contact situation leads to various issues in language choice
and language use in society. Non-native speakers’ attempt to speak foreign or
-
6
second languages may lead to failure in speech delivery as a result of
differences in culture, norms and values associated with language. Non-native
speakers of English as a second language in Nigeria tend to speak the language
on the background of the culture inherent in their native languages, thereby
violating some cultural context conditions. This kind of intercultural transfers in
language use has often caused pragmatic failures some of which may have
disastrous social consequences. Language in use is culturally sensitive and any
failure to speak without regard to cultural context may lead to pragmatic failures
in communicating actual intentions. Though different kinds of pragmatic
analysis in Nigeria have been analysed from different linguistic perspectives by
scholars and linguists, there is yet no pragmatic failures in intercultural
communication. This study thus intends to do analysis on pragmatic failures in
intercultural communication context to ascertain and determine how
inappropriate language use in cultural and social communication can lead to
pragmatic failure.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
This research on the failures identified in intercultural communication
aims to:
(i) Bring out the similarities between English and Nigerian languages
cultural communication norms.
(ii) Show differences in cultural communications norms between English and
Nigerian languages.
(iii) Determine how inappropriate language use in cultural communication can
lead to pragmatic failures.
1.4 Research Questions
Following the above purpose of study, we now come up with the
following research questions to guide our research.
-
7
(i) To what extent are the cultural communication norms in English and
Nigerian languages similar?
(ii) To what degree do the cultural communication norms in English and
Nigerian languages differ?
(iii) How does wrong use of language bring about pragmatic failures?
1.5 Significance of the Study
The study holds a lot of importance as far as communicative competence
is concerned. The study will help bring out the dynamics of language in use in
society as regards intercultural sensitivity. Findings from this research will
make a lot of input into communicative language teaching (CLT) syllabus. This
study in intercultural communication will also help bring to the fore the
sociolinguists’ stand on the nature of language.
The formal linguists pay so much attention to grammatical competence
but the sociolinguist insists on the importance of both linguistic competence and
communicative competence.
1.6 Scope of the Study
The study will focus on pragmatic failures as a result of intercultural
clashes which tend to yield wrong communicative effects. We shall look at the
speech of public office holders in government and corporate sector to ascertain
whether there are speakers who failed to communicate their intentions as a
result of pragmatic failure which may be occasioned by intercultural clashes in
language use. The study will concentrate on the native speakers of the three
major Nigerian languages, Igbo, Hausa, Yoruba use of English language in the
public spheres.
-
8
1.7 Limitations to the Study
A number of problems were encountered in an attempt to gather the relevant
data for this research. The limitation of this research centers basically on time
and finance.
Topics like Pragmatic Failures in Inter-Cultural Communication requires much
time frame to enable the researcher travel to many parts of the country
especially the three geopolitical zones in Nigeria, to garner information that will
aid the progress of the work.
Finance also posed a trait to the accomplishment of this research; this is because
Money is considered the mechanism that propels a successful execution of any
reliable research work. The researcher, in the cause of gathering information for
this work, spent a huge sum of money, which in turn affected her.
The researcher limits her data collection to the print media/internet sources.
This serves as a limitation as she would have wished to be present to listen to
these speeches which reflect pragmatic failures in real time.
However, the researcher made all necessary effort to ensure that she obtained
written, visual and audio copies of the data where possible, in order to
effectively and efficiently come out with a good research.
-
9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents a review of the works by scholars in the field with special
emphasis on the Theoretical review, Empirical Review and Theoretical
Framework. Not much has been done on intercultural communication but this
research is particularly concerned with the study of pragmatic failures in
intercultural communication context: the Nigerian perspective.
2.1 Theoretical Review
This section presents a review of the theory that is used in writing this research
work. Healed (1988) in Onuegbu (2004) defines theory as a set of ideas that
provide explanation for something (18). Theories are generally used in the study
of societal cultures, values, ideas and the various meanings obvious to these
things by individuals in the society. For a clear understanding of this work,
intercultural pragmatics is used to lend credence to this research.
Pinango (2013) explains intercultural communication in the following
statement:
Intercultural communication occurs when a member of one culture
produces a message for consumption by a member of another
culture. More precisely, it involves interaction between people
whose cultural perceptions and symbol systems are distinct enough
to alter the communication event (240).
Pinango further notes that in intercultural communication, participants in
an interaction assign different meanings, values and functions to different things
and most likely manage different and distinct institutional frameworks and
possess institutional practice for particular frameworks but not others, and this
might potentially lead to misunderstanding. Mey (2009) gives us an insight into
Intercultural Pragmatics in the following sentence:
-
10
Intercultural pragmatics is a part of contemporary linguistics which
is most concerned with ‘‘language as a part of life,’’ indeed, with
language as it affects millions of lives in the contemporary world,
and which arguably every student of human life should know
(292).
It is a discipline that has developed in response to what Istvan Kecskes (2004)
the editor of the New Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics calls ‘‘the challenges
of a new era”. These challenges involve, above all, interaction among people
from different cultures.
Pragmatics as a part of linguistics has always been concerned with
interpersonal interaction – but (as will be discussed below) in the past it was
often locked in a monolingual and mono-cultural framework, derived,
essentially, from the English language and Anglo culture. In the contemporary
world, however, a monolingual and mono-cultural perspective on language use
is no longer tenable, and in fact, has become glaringly irrelevant and obsolete.
Intercultural pragmatics or cross cultural pragmatics as used by Davies (1991) is
seen here in a much broader sense than as used in the study of speech
pragmatics.
Pragmatic failure has been referred to as the production of wrong
communication by speakers through the faulty use of speech acts or wrong
application of speaking rules. Thomas (1983) notes that pragmatic failure is the
inability of an individual to understand what is meant by what is said. He
proposes two categories of pragmatic failures: pragma-linguistic failure and
socio-pragmatic failure. Pragma-linguistic failure, according to her, arises when
an utterance fails to achieve the speaker’s goal; not necessarily because of a
grammatical error. Hence, she refrains from using the term, pragma-linguistic
error. In other words, this can occur when non-native speakers of a language try
to translate an utterance from their first language into the target language. In this
case, non-native speakers may end up not able to get their meaning across in the
-
11
target language because communicative conventions that guide utterances in the
target language are not adhered to. The second aspect of pragmatic failures
which is the socio-pragmatic failure as identified by Thomas, involves knowing
“what to say and whom to say it to”. She observes that most of the
misunderstanding and miscommunication that arises under this kind of
pragmatic failure occur as a result of differences in evaluation as regards the
size of imposition, cross-cultural differences, assessments of relative power or
social distance as well as value judgements. That is to say that a speaker may
know what to say but may say it to the wrong person, or present it in a wrong
context.
Enninger (1991) offers his view on cultural differences in communication
in the following terms:
Even if it were only perceptible surface phenomena which mediate
universal and imperceptible deep-process and that in culturally
divergent ways, a systematic contrastive analysis of pragmatics of
L1 and L2 is mandatory (29). A stronger point may be made from
the perspective of the ethnography of communication. In 1996
Hymes stated: My contention is that people who enact different
cultures do to some extent experience different communicative
systems, but not merely the same natural communicative condition
with different customs affixed. Cultural values are in part
constitutive of linguistic reality. (29).
Halliday (1973) in Okeke (2010) defines language as “… a range of
possibilities, an open ended set of option in behaviour that are available as a
social man; the context of culture in the environment of any particular selection
that is made from within them” (42).
-
12
Searle (2007) referring to the interactive function of language notes that
“language is essentially social, but not just in any old way; rather in a way that
makes human society essentially linguistic” (9)
Okeke (2010) notes that the sociolinguist identifies the social functions of
language and the ways they are used to convey social meaning (46). Again,
culture is embedded in the intrinsic nature of language and every language user;
especially non- native speakers need to pay particular attention to the
communicative properties of language. On the contrary, if acceptable cultural
and social patterns are not adhered to in language use, it then follows that there
is bound to be a misfire in language use. This kind of situation is avoidable
when we emphasize the practical code of language for the learner. This kind of
understanding in language use has given rise to new focus in language teaching.
Agbedo (2007) recognizes Halliday’s efforts in redirecting “their research
interest in line with characterizing language as an instrument of social
communication and extending the scope of grammar to cover not just the
internal patterns of language as a self- contained system but also the manner in
which these patterns relate to the communicative operation of language in use”
(342).
In line with the foregoing, Agbedo (2007) in the following statements
emphasizes a theoretical shift in the linguistic paradigm.
This theoretical shift reflects some writers’ criticism of Chomsky’s
delimitation of the scope of linguistic description which focuses
exclusively on the ideal speaker’s sum total knowledge of his
language as too narrow. A number of applied linguists and teachers
have in the spirit of this shift of emphasis in language pedagogy,
dismissed the structural approach to language teaching as less than
adequate in providing for the learning of communicative
competence. The outcome of the shift in emphasis is a set of
proposals in favour of ‘a communicative content’ of language
-
13
teaching courses and syllabuses that consist of both linguistic
structures as well as communicative notional categories of one kind
or another. The basic assumption of this kind of syllabus, note
Allen and Widdowson, is that what the learner needs to know is not
so much how to recognize and produce sentences as linguistic
objects but how to make and understand utterances which express
certain concepts, perform certain communicative acts, and in
general enable the learner to participate in the interactional process
of normal language use (342).
From the foregoing, it is important that language learners develop
strategies for relating linguistic structures to their communicative function in
real life situations. At this juncture, let us consider communicative competence
as being central to the understanding of the dynamics of using language to
perform given tasks. Communicative competence assumes the language user’s
ability to “not just recognise and produce sentences as linguistic but how to
make and understand utterances which express certain concepts, perform certain
communicative acts, and in general enable the learner to participate in the
interactional process of normal language use”. (Agbedo:342).
Communicative competence is a term well expounded in Hymes (1971) and
it refers to the knowledge needed by a speaker or hearer. He further notes that
communicative competence is more broadly based than the linguistic
competence of Chomskyan tradition, as it includes our knowledge of how to use
linguistic forms appropriately and not just the knowledge of the linguistic
forms. In line with the foregoing, Dell Hymes’ term, ethnography of
communication expounds relevant factors in understanding how to carry out a
successful interaction in a communicative event and avoid pragmatic failures
that may elicit humour or other forms of reactions including abuse or violence
as the case may be. Agbedo, asserts the importance of ethnography of
communication in the following:
-
14
“This by implication predisposes us to the option of teaching language as
communication, the social uses of language and the way language functions in
the everyday business of communication”(344).
Agbedo, outlines the rudiments of Dell Hymes (1971) Ethnography of
Communication as follows:
These aspects of language which do not normally come within the general scope
of grammatical descriptions are captured by Dell Hymes’ term ethnography of
communication(346). An ethnographic account of a communicative event, notes
Wardhaugh (1986) “… is a description of all the factors that are relevant in
understanding how that particular communicative event achieves its
objectives”(238) Hynmes, continues Wardhaugh, uses the word SPEAKING as
an acronym for what has to be inventorized and related in an ethnographic
account. We shall examine these factors as outlined by Dell Hymes.
Settings (S) refers to the time and place, i.e. the concrete physical
circumstances in which speech or communication is permitted, enjoined,
encouraged, abridged.
Participant (P) includes various combinations of speaker-hearer, addresser-
addressee or sender or receiver.
Ends (E) refers to the conventionally recognized and expected outcomes of an
exchange as well as to the personal goals that participants seek to accomplish on
particular occasions.
Acts Sequence (A) refers to the actual form and content of what is said: the
precise words used, how they are used, and the relationship of what is said to
the actual topic at hand.
Key (K) refers to the tone, manner, or spirit in which a particular message is
conveyed: whether light-hearted, serious, elevated, banal, precise, pedantic,
mocking, sarcastic, and pompous etc.
-
15
Instrumentalities (I) refers to the various available channels, and their modes of
use, speaking, writing, printing, drumming, blowing, whistling, singing, face
and body motions as visually perceived, smelling, testing and tactile sensation.
This aspect equally embraces the actual forms of speech employed, such
as the language, dialect, code, or register that is chosen.
Norms of Interaction and Interpretation (N) This implies the specific
behaviours and properties that attach to speaking and also to how these may be
reviewed by someone who does not share them, e.g. loudness, silence, gaze-
return, etc.
Genre (G) refers to clearly demarcated types of utterance, such things as poems,
proverbs, riddles, sermons, prayers, lectures and editorials. These are all
‘marked’ in specific ways in contrast to casual speech.
The above account encapsulates all that a speaker needs to carry out a
successful use of language in communication which according to Agbedo,
includes “a sensitivity to and awareness of linguistic, interactional and cultural
factors that are germane to all communicative activities” (346)..
The foregoing is in line with Saville-Troike, in Agbedo, who outlines
these important aspects of the content of communication as follows:
Linguistic: verbal elements, non-verbal elements, patterns of elements in
particular speech events, range of possible variants, meaning of variants in
particular situations.
Interaction skills: perception of salient features in communicative situations,
roles and relationships, norms of interaction and interpretation strategies for
achieving goals.
Cultural knowledge: social structure, values and attitudes, cognitive
map/schema, enculturation processes (346).
Furthermore, Agbedo, asserts that “it equally falls within the descriptive
outline of ethnography of communication to account for the non-verbal
communicative behaviour of man” (347). Again, he notes that though non-
-
16
verbal communication is evident in all human communication, it could be
language/culture specific. In other words, each language and culture chooses
how to incorporate non verbal elements in its communicative repertoire. Hence,
from society to society coding and decoding of information may vary based
several factors including culture, age, gender, communicative event e.t.c.
Besides, functionality that is what use language is put to gives us a greater
insight into how languages operate. We can also say that complimentary to
ethnographic description of language is the description of the function of
language. According to Agbedo,
A number of linguists, notably Jakobson (1960), Halliday (1973)
and Robinson (1972) have proposed different categorizations of
the functions of language. Halliday’s list, for example, covers the
following functions: instrumental, regulatory, personal, heuristic,
imaginative and representational. Robinson’s list includes
avoidance, conformity to norms, aesthetics, encounter regulation,
performative, affective, role relationship marking, referential,
instruction, inquiry and metalanguage functions (347).
From the foregoing, we understand that language must be used to carry out
certain functions appropriately which underlies communicative competence. In
other words, when we learn structures of a language, we must also learn how to
use them appropriately in communication.
The functional aspects of language are therefore to be emphasized.
Bischoff and Jany (2013) capture the focus on functionalism as seen in the
following: “Functionalism, as characterized by Allen, "holds that linguistic
structures can only be understood and explained with reference to the semantic
and communicative functions of language, whose primary function is to be a
vehicle for social interaction among human beings” (254). Since the 1970s,
inspired by the work of Jespersen, Bolinger, Dik, Halliday, and Chafe,
functionalism has been attached to a variety of movements and models making
-
17
major contributions to linguistic theory and to various subfields within
linguistics, such as syntax, discourse, language acquisition, cognitive linguistics,
typology, and documentary linguistics. Further, functional approaches have had
a major impact outside linguistics in fields such as psychology and education,
both in terms of theory and application. The main goal of functionalist
approaches is to clarify the dynamic relationship between form and function
(Thompson 2003). Functionalist perspectives have gained more ground over the
past decades with more linguists resorting to functional explanations to account
for linguistic structure. The authors in this volume present the current state of
functional approaches to linguistic inquiry expanding our knowledge of
language and linguistics.
In our world of multiple languages when we move from one language to
another we need to master the ways of the new language. In line with the
foregoing, Agbedo, comments: “Therefore, in learning a language, we are
equally learning to communicative in those ways deemed appropriate by the
group in which we are doing the learning. These ways also differ from group to
group and from one linguistic context to another. In essence, as we move from
one language to another, we must learn the new ways peculiar to a given
language if we are to fit into that new group” (348)
Pinango (2013) in asserting the “naturalistic” and the “deontic” nature of
language states: “The account of language that best serves our purpose is one
provided by Searle (2007), which describes language as being both
‘naturalistic’, that is, as an extension of other human biological fundamental
forms of intentionality and as “deontic”, in the sense that “once a society has a
common language, it already has a social contract’ (241). Including these two
features in a description of language for building, defining and understanding
institutional frameworks and institutional practice is essential, because they
underpin two features present in social and cultural phenomena …, namely, our
inherent human capacity to ascribe different meanings and functions to
-
18
phenomena that would otherwise not possess meanings and functions (the
naturalistic aspect), and the binding qualities that these creations actually have,
as well as our commitment to complying with them (deontic aspect).
From the above, we understand that language goes with some cultural
conventions and that meanings are assigned by the society and social contexts
implying that language is a social contract. Hence, whoever that uses language
in any given society must conform to certain norms of usage.
Searle (2013) asserts that:
…we will not understand an essential feature of language if we do not see that it
necessarily involves social commitments, and that the necessity of these social
commitments derives from the social character of the communication situation,
the conventional character of the devices used, and the intentionality of speaker
meaning (28). It is this feature that enables language to form the foundation of
human society in general.
In view of the above, the researcher considers intercultural pragmatics as the
theoretical framework of this study. This is as a result of the fact that the theory
views language as part of life and that language affects millions of lives in the
world; and the researcher believes it could situate the topic of the pragmatic
failures in intercultural communication.
Empirical Review
One of the works reviewed by the researcher is that of Thomas Jenny. She
investigated on sociolinguistic miscommunication. She also made some
researches on pragmatic failures. Thomas study makes a dichotomy of
pragmatic failures based on the difficulty in the analysis of possible remedies
both on the sides of the language teacher and language learners. She uses the
socio-pragmatic analytical framework to provide a useful way of looking at the
type of diversity which exists across cultures and which, most of the time, leads
-
19
to cross-cultural problems. She succeeds in separating major areas where there
are differences in cultural rules as regarding speech behaviour.
Another work reviewed by the researcher is the work of Cruz M.P. He
investigated on the understanding and overcoming of pragmatic failures in
intercultural communication from the focus on the speakers to focus on the
hearers. In this study, the researcher tried to look at the excessive focus of
teachers on the ability of the learners of a language to speak the language while
neglecting the importance of these learners to be able to interpret the utterances
from the speakers accurately in given contexts in order to avoid pragmatic
failures. The researcher adopted the framework of relevance-theoretic view of
communication to enable him explain why misunderstandings arise and to show
that learners’ sophistication in understanding is not the same as that of the
natives.
The study observes that pragmatic failures arise from factors such as
negative transfer of discourse stretches or linguist strategies due to a direct
translation; undue overgeneralisations of L2 forms to inappropriate settings,
lack of cultural knowledge, limited language to which learners are exposed in
the classroom. He therefore recommends that teachers should prepare
awareness-raising activities that stress the need and importance of activating the
learner’s meta-pragmatic knowledge involving the pragmatic development they
have already undergone in their L1 (First language). He also recommends that
learners must be taught to be cautious optimistic hearers in order to be able to
reject interpretations of utterances which they are led to regard as relevant
enough although their interlocutors may have expected them to interpret them
differently.
Agbedo (2007) studies the pertinent role of sociolinguists in creating awareness
towards the importance of the communicative content of language description.
Sociolinguistics draws the attention of grammarians and applied linguists to the
importance of communicative purposes of language rather than dwelling so
-
20
much on structural description and teaching same to learners of the language
which at the end does not produce a good result as regards proper behavioural
patterns in the environment of the target language. Agbedo, asserts that:
Although we acknowledge the fact that knowledge of the
grammatical rules as provided by the grammarian has served as
basis for the development of approaches, to the teaching of
language as system, our position in this paper is that
communicative approach to LT can equally develop from an
awareness of the many ways language functions in the contexts of
social use (341).
Pinango, explores the possible areas of application in the field of
Intercultural Pragmatics for the study of Intercultural Communication. Pinango,
also observes that, “Meanings associated with behaviours, states of affairs and
people are so divergent in each setting described by Professor Fish; it provides a
scenario that can help us speculate over what might happen if an individual
didn’t have an adequate command or understanding of the complex sets of
meaning assigned to objects, behaviours, states of affairs and people within
particular settings when involved in intercultural interactions. That is, it allows
us to speculate about the possible communicative effects that might result if
someone, who do not understand the meanings, value systems, and day-to-day
practices that converge within a particular set of circumstances, interacts with
people in specific sets of circumstances who do hold and share those particular
meanings, value systems, and enact certain day-to-day practices.”
From the foregoing, one of such effects that may occur in communication is
‘misfiring’, which will inadvertently lead to pragmatic failures that form the
main thrust of the investigation in this research. Pinango, in his conclusion
outlines and proposes two constructs – institutional framework and institutional
practice for the study of intercultural communication based on a perceived need
within the field of intercultural pragmatics to include a broader discursive aspect
-
21
that transcends beyond utterance level analysis when studying intercultural
communication (240).
Davies, adopts the theoretical framework of interactional sociolinguistics
and links the theoretical research on cultural ethos as well as research in cross-
cultural pragmatics with the interpretation of situated language; drawing
teachers’ attention to three interrelated aspects of conventional style which are
significant aspects of sociable cultural cross-cultural encounters between
Americans and Germans. The goal of his research is to provide teachers of both
English and German as second languages with conceptual bases for classroom
practice in teaching culture appropriately. He further posits that awareness of
cross-cultural pragmatics and the development of interactional competence
should be given high priority from the beginning of any language study as the
bases for developing all aspects of communicative competence.
Krisagbedo, conducted a study on pragmatic failures in the Nigeria, inter-
lingual communication context and the linguistic mechanism of accidental
humour. In the study, these researchers tried to examine the occurrence of
pragmatic failures such as accidental humour, which arises from Nigerian
English users’ production of wrong communicative effects through the faulty
use of speech acts or one of the rules of speaking.
In studying a number of expressions by some users of the English
language in the Nigerian intercultural communication environment such as the
speeches of Mr. Shema Obafaiye, Former Governor Elechi of Ebonyi state and
that of the former first lady of Nigeria, Dame Patience Jonathan, among others
and observed several pragmatic failures in them. The researcher observed that
pragmatic failures do not only occur due to errors in syntax, inaccurate
pronunciation, L1 interference or overgeneralization, but can also partly be from
the lack of pragmatic awareness and cross-cultural interactional communicative
competence and misunderstanding or miscommunication of implied meaning.
-
22
He also observes that unintentional humour in interlingual
communication arises from the poor communicative competence in the target
language (Standard English) on the part of the Nigerian English speakers’. With
this in mind, the researcher questions the persistent use of the English language
as the country’s official language amidst these recurrent pragmatic flaws and
accidental humour attendant with its usage among Nigerians whereas there are
over three hundred indigenous Nigerian languages out of which one can be
selected to occupy such status.
These reviewed works really went a long way to tackle issues relating to
this topic. However, gaps still remain which ought to be filled. Pragmatic
failures occur in so many communication settings, both within a given culture
and across two or more cultures. The way they occur, take place or manifest
also differ. Therefore, this work fills the studying of the pragmatic failures
experienced in the inter-cultural communication with emphasis on use of person
deixis, use of obscure lexical items, use of ambiguious expression, recognitions
of titless and meticulous address of names and personalities, political and social
class distinctions, respect for the populace who constitute a society and how
they constitute pragmatic failures in intercultural communication. That is, this
study provides a wider spread of tentacles in the study of pragmatic failures as it
relates to inter-cultural communication.
2.2 Summary
Intercultural communication and intercultural pragmatics can also be
understood and studied within the framework of non-native speakers of a
particular language while speaking a foreign language or a second language
carrying over certain cultures and norms from their native languages into the
new languages. In the case of the Nigerian situation, speakers of native Nigerian
languages, e.g Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa, may introduce some elements inherent in
their first language into the target language, in this case, English.
-
23
English has been adopted as the Official Nigerian language for
governmental, administrative, legislative, educational, business functions.
Hence, most users of English in the Nigerian official circles already have their
mother-tongues as their first language before coming in contact with the English
language.
2.4. Choice of Theoretical Framework
Communication across languages and cultures has become a new area of
study in pragmatics and this aspect of pragmatics is studied under Intercultural
pragmatics. According to Kecskes and Romeo-Trillo, “Intercultural pragmatics
investigates how the language system is put to use in social encounters between
human beings who have different first languages, communicate in a common
language and, usually represent different cultures” (1).
Furthermore, Kecskes, asserts that the theoretical stance in the foregoing
open a new frontier in advances in classical studies on communication, both for
bilingual and multilingual speakers and also covering interactions among
speakers of different languages. Kecskes and Romeo-Trillo, remark- “the three
primary applications of intercultural pragmatics: the linguistic and cognitive
domain, the social and cultural domain, and the discourse and stylistics domain”
(3).
In this study, we shall adopt the linguistic and cognitive domain in conjunction
with the social and cultural domain within the theoretical framework of
intercultural pragmatics.
-
24
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this segment of this work, the research method and procedures used in
this study are presented. Here, the following are discussed: research design, area
of study, population of study, instrumentation, sampling procedures, method of
data collection, method of data analysis.
3.1. Research Design
In order to guide the research appropriately in generating adequate data for
the analysis that will yield results, the descriptive method is adopted for this
work. Data are collected and described in a systematic way based on the
framework used in this study.
3.2. Area of the Study
The area of study for this research is pragmatics. Pragmatics is the area of
linguistic investigation which studies the way language is used to derive various
shades of meaning in a given context. It is based on this area within which this
work is situated that the researcher tries to study various meanings which the
users of the English language in the Nigerian environment attach to words and
expressions, leading ultimately, in some cases, to pragmatic failure.
3.3 Population of the Study
The target population of this study is the public office holders who use the
English language to carry out their day-to-day official duties including their
personal interactions as far as it is made in the public domain and also presented
in any form of media or public events.
3.4 Instrumentation
The instrument involved in this research shall be in the form of listening to
audio recording devices which are employed in the recording of audio outputs
for the purposes of transcribing them and analyzing the data gathered in line
with the topic under study. Again, direct audio recordings done by the
-
25
researcher and research assistants are used. Besides, both print and online media
are read to purposively gather data that will be analysed.
3.5 Sampling Procedure
Eleven respondents are randomly selected from our area of study using
the purposive sampling method. All public office holders in Nigeria are
potential sources of data for this research. The purposive sampling technique is
adopted because it shall best serve the purpose of this research.
3.6 Methods of Data Collection
Some of the data were gathered from already existing media, both print and
electronic, while some were collected through the means of direct audio
recordings at public events through participant observation, both by the
researcher and a handful of research assistants at different times.
The issue of observers’ paradox would not present any challenge as the
audio recordings are made in the public places where the subjects may not
directly know that the researcher or research assistants are recording their
speeches. Besides, some speeches are taped from the electronic media where the
researcher need not necessarily have personal contact with the subjects of the
study. Again, data are also collected from relevant government documents that
capture speeches of public office holders such as books, bulletins, etc.
3.7 Method of Data Analysis
All data gathered in the course of this research are analyzed using the
descriptive approach within the theoretical framework adopted in this study as
has been earlier expounded.
-
26
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS
As earlier stated, we shall adopt the linguistic and cognitive domain in
conjunction with the social and cultural domain within the theoretical
framework of intercultural pragmatics. The speeches delivered by some
prominent Nigerians such as former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua,
Nigeria’s First Prime Minister Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, former
military heads of state of Nigeria- Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, Major-
General Yakubu Gowon, Brigadier Murtala Ramat Muhammed and Lt. General
Olusegun Obasanjo, Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, Major-General
Phillip Effiong, President Muhammadu Buhari, Honourable Patrick Obahiagbon
and Dame Patience Jonathan, in the public domain will provide the data for
analysis in this research.
4.1 Linguistic Domain
Here, peculiar linguistic features in the collected data are analyzed with
emphasis on how they bring about pragmatic failure. Patience Jonathan and
Patrick Obahiagbon’s speeches provide the data for this segment of analysis.
4.1.1 Use of Person Deixis
Deictic expressions, generally, are “bits of language which we can only
understand in terms of speaker’s intended meaning.” To Renkema (2008) as
quoted in Adegoju (2005) deictic words are words with a reference point that is
speaker or writer dependent, and is determined by the speaker’s or writer’s
position in space and time. The reference of such expressions, according to
Adegoju, cannot be determined without knowing the extra-linguistic context of
the utterance (who uttered them, where and when). Deictic expressions are
-
27
generally classified into person deixis, referring to interactants in a
communicative event, e.g., I, we, you, he, she, it, they; place deixis, referring to
spatial relations in a communicative event, e.g, here, there, this; and temporal
deixis, referring to time relations in a communicative event, eg now, then,
yesterday, tomorrow. Our interest here is on person deictic elements, which are
realized by using personal pronouns. Person deixis is classified on the basis of
number and this is purely on a grammatical ground. Hence, the use of the first
person I (singular) and we (plural); the second person, you (singular) and they
(plural) are all grammatically motivated. According to Chen (2007) it does not
mean that you cannot use the plural form of the first person when you alone are
speaking. We may, therefore, flout the regulation of person and number, thus
giving rise to signs of rhetorical motivation or persuasive intent. But it is also
observed that this style obscures meaning so that it is difficult to place the
speaker’s exact referent. This is what usually brings about a communicative gap
herein reffered to as pragmatic failure.
The first category of deictic elements that speakers usually deploy
tactically in the discourse is that of the first-person plural subject/object,
reflexive and possessive pronominal elements, which are: we, us, our and
ourselves. Such elements actually perform certain pragmatic functions as deictic
devices. The interesting thing about them is their close association with two
dimensions fundamental to the analysis of social life: the dimensions of power
and solidarity. These dimensions are apparently integral to Mrs Jonathan’s
constant deployment of them in her speeches. Consider each of the samples of
her speeches below. The first one was made in a political rally in Akwa Ibom
State of Nigeria in 2015, while the second one was made when she engaged
some women in Abia State during a political rally before the 2015 general
elections. They are presented below: A
-
28
Akwaibom people, judge o. Because we are not here for lies. We
are not here for propaganda. Our business here is to tell you the
truth about our government. Because the APC number one
campaign is corruption, as if they are not corrupt; they are not
corrupt. APC will continue changing their name until they will
reach Ebola. And they will call it Ebola. You know what Ebola
normally do? Although we will wipe it off and they will bury it,
because it cannot stay here. So, let them continue changing their
name. If they fail this time, because I know they have failed, you
will hear they will change their name again; they will change it and
answer another name.
In Abia State women rally, she said: A
If we have not done well, come out and challenge us. If you vote
for us come March 28, 2015, we will do more.
We are here to tell you what PDP government has done. We are
here to tell you the truth. We are not propagandaly; we are not here
to deceive you. We are not here to lie for you, because whatever
we say, go and search because you will see it.
The point here is that it is difficult to establish who the plural pronominal
elements we and us as used by the speaker actually refer to. If the speaker refers
to herself and others, who exactly are these others. This apparent obscurity
engendered by the deployment of these deictic elements, no doubt, creates a
communication gap, as the speaker’s interlocutors are left wondering who the
real referents are; they are left wondering the speech is anything better than
mere political rhetorics.
-
29
On the other hand, the use of these pronouns here says a lot about how
much responsibility the speaker, Mrs Jonathan, wants to assume responsibility
for an utterance or an idea. The first person singular pronoun ‘I’, for instance,
clearly declares who is responsible while the first person plural pronoun, ‘we’,
makes the status of responsibility unclear. In the data above, therefore, it is
difficult to establish the level of responsibility which Mrs Jonathan takes or
hopes to take over what she says, for her use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ repeatedly here
shifts the bulk of responsibility from her to unknown persons. This linguistic
pattern has a rhetorical undertone, as it is meant to influence the thinking of her
supporters, but pragmatic failure remains its key feature. Person deixis, which is
used in the form of first person plural pronominal element, ‘we’and ‘us’ is,
therefore, beautifully exploited by Mrs Jonathan to achieve her persuasive
intentions, even if the speeches lack clarity.
4.1.2 Use of Obscure Lexical Items
Honourable Patrick Obahiagbon has securely established well-deserved
notoriety for himself as someone who is hardly incapable of stringing together a
single sentence that is not a comical representation of the use of English. There
is probably no public figure in Nigeria’s recent history who has publicly and
mindlessly complicated basic English syntax with as much indifference and
regularity as Honourable Obahiagbon . This is why his idiolect has been roundly
condemned by the general public for lacking basic communicative ingredients.
Consider the following collection of speeches:
1 Let me say as quickly as possible that the political “crinkum
crankum”, if you like, the political “higi haga” that has enveloped
the politics of Rivers State for a period of time now has all the
trappings of an odoriferous saga cum gargantua gaga
-
30
2.This ASUU strike is a miasma of depreccable apotheosis of a
hemorrhageing plutocracy cascadingly oozing into a malodorous
excresence of mobocracy. With all termagant ossifying proclivities
of a kakistocracy, our knowledgia centura is enveloped in a
paraphlegic crinkum crankum. Therefore, ASUU cest in a dejavu,
dejavu peret ologomabia(“Obahiagbon’s English”…).
3.The presidential invasion of the National Assembly which was
unscrupulously executed by its pursuivant Inspectore General of
police had all the trappings of an Entebbe raid and executive
rascality, which is deservable of an acidic excoriation and corrosive
pummeling. But the impeachment gambit is, however, a
frankeistous yoyo, with a potency for an erebus prone whirligig
4.I am maniacally bewildered, overgasted at the paraplegic
crinkum crankum that characterized the GLO CAF awards,
culminating in an oriferous saga cum gargatuangaga. The jiggery
pockery of CAF in crowning Yaya Toure instead of our very own
prodigy, Mikel Obi, is a veritable bugaboo that must be poo-
poohed by all compos mentis homo sapiens. The perfidy and
mendacity of all the apparatchic of sports is not only repugnant, but
also insalubrious.
5. To the Glory of the Great Grand Architect of the Universe and
the Cosmic Hosts. This statement engenders pragmatic failure
because of the kind of response it provokes from the listener(s) or
audience of the speaker. The expression ‘Great Grand Architect of
the Universe and the Cosmic Hosts’ is a complex expression which
simply expressed how great and glorious God is. The choice of this
grammatically cumbersome expression by the speaker leaves the
-
31
listener unable to concentrate on the discussion at hand or idea
being expressed. The listener may equally be left to wonder how
grammatically, morally and conventionally accurate such as an
expression is.
6. I also thank even more, all those who have vilified, excoriated,
bashed, lampooned and thrown acerbic punches at my person....
This statement also creates the same pragmatic failure as that observed in the
previous statement. The words ‘vilify’ means to say ill about a person. The
word ‘excoriate’ simply means to denounce. The word ‘lampoon’ simply means
to ridicule while the word ‘acerbic’ simple means sour or bitter or sharp-
tempered, among others. The use of these words by the speaker while speaking
to the Nigerian public with a higher percentage of illiterate and semi-literate
population kills the pragmatic aim of the speech made. Again, even the
educated Nigerians and English language users in general, conventionally prefer
the use of simple correct expressions. Therefore, the statement above leaves the
listeners also distracted from paying attention to the basic purpose of the speech
God bless all men and women on planet earth...so mote it be....
In this statement or expression, one can notice that the speaker goes over-
board to even make use of an archaic or outdated word ‘mote’ which in modern
English language, is expressed as ‘may’ or ‘might’. The use of such an
expression also causes pragmatic failure because the audience is left stranded,
wondering what the speaker means instead of understanding the speech itself.
I can see the ship of the Nigerian state hovering around the
political Bermuda Triangle.
This expression ‘…hovering around the political Bermuda Triangle’ is an
unnecessary show of English vocabulary knowledge or intellectual competence
given the nature of the Nigerian audience of the speaker. Bermuda triangle is a
-
32
phenomenon familiar mainly to people who possess the knowledge of
geography. It will therefore, result in pragmatic failure because of the inability
of the statement harbouring the expression to make meaning to the majority of
the listeners.
Beaugrade and Dressler(1981) had argued that the efficiency of a text is
contingent upon a number of factors: usefulness, effectiveness and
appropriateness. Whether it is spoken or written, a text has to be useful to the
participants with a minimum of effort; its effectiveness depends on whether it
makes a strong impression and has a good agreement with the established seven
standards of textuality.In the presented sample of speeches above, one can
observe that the speaker makes use of obscure and unidentified lexical items.
His choice of words is so difficult that it is easy to lose sense of what he intends
to communicate. In fact, nothing is communicated, instead, the deployment of
such words usually evokes laughter and ridicule to the detriment of the desired
response from the audience. This creates a certain gap in communication. This
breakdown in communication, this pragmatic failure, is apparently occasioned
by his choice of linguistic resources, which has been revealed to be hinged on
difficult choice of words and obscure imagery.
4.1.3 Use of Ambiguous Expressions
Certain ambiguous expressions which hamper communication are also variously
used by some of our objects of study. Examples of such uses include statements
by Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu. Example 1:
No Minister or Parliamentary Secretary possesses administrative
or other forms of control over any ministry, even if they are not
considered too dangerous to be arrested.
This statement is ambiguous as the listener to the speaker gets confused,
not knowing what the speaker means. The ambiguity is caused by the use of the
referential expressions ‘No Minister or Parliamentary Secretary’, ‘ministry’ and
-
33
‘they’ and the expression ‘even if they are not considered too dangerous to be
arrested’.
Here, one wonders whether the speaker means that such action, if carried
out by a Minister of Parliamentary Secretary, will not be arrested or that
whosoever carries out such an action will be arrested? If this is the case, why
then does the prohibition of such an action rank high in the speaker’s list of
stern warnings or rules?
The ambiguity in the speaker’s statement causes pragmatic failure because the
listeners will not be able to understand him, even as this has a high percentage
of causing disaffection thereby distorting whatever message the speaker may
have. Another instance of this is seen below: Example II: Tafawa Balewa-
This is an occasion when our hearts are filled with conflicting
emotions: we are, indeed, proud to have achieved our
independence, and proud that our efforts should have contributed
to this happy event.
Probable meaning of the above expression: The above statement equally
creates ambiguity. The listener is left with two confusing ideas or interpretations
of the statement. In the first idea expressed, the speaker gives the impression
that his actions and those of his comrades are brought about by the
Independence which was being celebrated, and in the second idea expressed, he
contradicts himself by giving the listener the impression that their efforts ought
to have brought about the event. This second idea is expressed as a wish which
has not materialized. So, does he mean to tell the audience that Independence
has been achieved or does it mean that it has not been achieved; thereby making
the occasion appear irrelevant. This, no doubt, renders communication
impossible, hence pragmatics failure is achieved. The speaker’s intended
statement results in pragmatic failure as the meaning is shrouded in ambiguity
as to whether the name-changers will suffer the disease or whether they will
adopt the name for themselves.
-
34
4.2 Lexical gaps
Lexical gap can occur when the speaker fails to use the appropriate word in the
language to explore his intended meaning or when a word or a phrase is missing
in a sentence, this can lead to pragmatic failure as the meaning may not be well
gotten by the recipients as seen in the abstracts below
Example I: Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu-
Our enemies are the political profiteers, the swindlers, the men in
high and low places that seek bribes and demand 10 percent; those
that seek to keep the country divided permanently so that they can
remain in office as ministers or VIPs at least, the tribalists, the
nepotists, those that make the country look big for nothing before
international circles, those that have corrupted our society and put
the Nigerian political calendar back by their words and deeds.
Pragmatic failure results from the lexical gap recorded in the statement
above. The lexical gap is observed in the expression ‘10 percent’. This is as a
result of the speaker’s failure to adequately explain what he means by the
expression ’10 percent’. This pragmatic failure could have been avoided if the
speaker had spared a little time to add few lexical expressions which could have
explained his concept of ‘10 percent’ as it will be obvious that even if some
sections of the audience understood what he may have meant, it is not every
member of the audience. Consequently, the intended meaning of the speaker’s
statement is lost due to the lexical gaps identified.
Example II: A primary objective is to create the right atmosphere for a rapid
increase in home ownership.
The lexical gap observed in this statement made by the speaker leaves the
listener wondering if the speaker is talking about a certain objective made the
primary focus by a certain person of group of persons. This is because the
speaker made use of the indefinite article ‘a’ instead of the definite article ‘the’.
-
35
This situation also leads to pragmatic failure because the listener is unable to
understand that the expression is meant as a promise or plan of the speaker to
make his/her current housing situation better. Therefore, the response of
excitement, happiness, joy and approval is not expressed leading to the
speaker’s disappointment that his ‘benevolence’ is not appreciated by the
‘ungrateful’ listener.
Example III: … you will hear they will change their name again
Here, ‘that’ is omitted leading to a lexical gap that can derail the focus of
a listener. This causes pragmatic failure also. This is because, with the omission
‘that’, the listener fails to capture the exact idea of the speaker. The hearer of
this statement may presume, while putting this statement into writing to express
it thus, “…you will hear, “They will change their name again”. One then
wonders whether the speaker is merely repeating the statement credited to a
certain group of people or whether she is expressing her own statement.
4.3 Cognitive Domain
Certain questions that cognitive psychology asks border partly on the
structure of language, how language is organized and represented in the mind,
how we process and understand language, the neurological basis of language,
and language disorders. Another subject of investigation in this regard concerns
the relationship between language and thought. For example, is thinking merely
speeches that are not vocalized, or are other processes involved? How does
language influence the way we think? It is this concern that interests us more
with regard to pragmatic failures in inter-cultural communication in the
cognitive context. In otherwords, what impression do Patience Jonathan and
Patrick Obahiagbon, for instance, create in us when they use language in their
own peculiar ways? Our analysis so far reveals that their use of language does
not give any linguistic appetite, hence pragmatic failure is achieved.
-
36
4.4 Social and Cultural Domain
Language is indissolubly linked with members of the society in which it is
spoken, and social and cultural factors are inevitably reflected in their speech.
This is where the concern of sociolinguistics becomes relevant, for socio-
linguistics is explained elsewhere as that branch of linguistics which studies
those properties of language and languages which require reference to social,
including contextual factors in their explanation. Some of the collected data
below will help in placing the relevance of the social and cultural domain of
language in communication in proper perspective.
Similarities in the Cultural Communication Systems between English and
Nigerian Languages.
From the data, there are norms which are observed from the speeches of
these several speakers of various Nigerian languages; Nigerian languages such
as the Igbo, Hausa, Yoruba, etc. Identified norms establishe the fact that society
and culture could play a huge role in effecting communication.
4.4.1 Recognition of titles and meticulous address of names and
personalities:
This can be observed in examples such as His Excellency Vice President
Goodluck Jonathan, President of the Senate, the Speaker House of
Representatives, my Lord Chief Justice of Nigeria, President Olusegun
Obasanjo; Our founding fathers, Mr. Herbert Macauley, Dr. Nnamdi
Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of
Sokoto, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Malam Aminu Kano, Chief J. S.
Tarka, Mr. Eyo Ita, Chief Denis Osadeby, Chief Ladoke Akintola, Your
Excellencies; Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, Queen of NigBrigadier P. C.
Amadi (Army), Brigadier C. A. Nwawo (Army), Captain W. A. Anuku
(Navy), Wing Commander J. I. Ezeilo (Air Force), Inspector-General of
-
37
Police, Chief P. I. Okeke, Mr. J. I. Emembolu (Attorney-General), Professor
Eni Njoku, Dr. I. Eke, Chief A. E. Udofia, Chief Frank Opigo and Chief J.
M. Echeruo; General Yakubu Gowon as Head of the Federal Military
Government and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Vice Admiral
JEA Wey – . Chief of Staff, Supreme HQ, Major-General Hassan Katsina –
Deputy Chief of Staff, Supreme HQ, Major-General David Ejoor – Chief of
Staff (Army), Rear Admiral Nelson Soroh – Chief of Naval Staff, Brigadier
E. E Ikwue – Chief of Air Staff,… Alhaji Kam Salem – Inspector General of
Police, Chief T. A. Fagbola – Deputy Inspector General of Police5;
Brigadier TY Danjuma – Chief of Army Staff, Colonel John Yisa Doko,
Chief of Air Staff, Commodore Michael Adelanwa – Chief of Naval Staff,
Mr. MD Yusuf, Inspector General of Police, Lt. Col. B. S. Dimka and Mr. J.
D. Gomwalk.
These examples show that the Nigerian society places high premium on
the use of titles. In America, for instance, President Barrack Obama could
simply be addressed as Mr Barrack Obama and nothing else. A foreigner who
attends an occasion in Nigeria where these titles are reeled out will certainly
find it difficult to follow the train of events, for in many cases, the mere mention
of these titles suggest a lot of things which are already an integral part of the
culture, and which no longer needs any emphasis. This is what brings about
pragmatic failure in communication. Languages pay proper attention to the way
people are addressed or referred to. The excerpts from the speeches of various
Nigerians, drawn across from various tribes or ethnic groups (especially the
three major ethnic groups), who play and had played roles in the political setting
of the country, Nigeria, dedicated and still dedicate enormous effort to voicing-
out the titles with which people are addressed, even while speaking the official
language, which is English. Observations made reveal that the majority of the
titles with which persons are addressed in Nigerian languages reflect strong
traditional roots. There are so many titles which individuals are addressed which
-
38
are rooted in the traditions of majority of the Nigerian languages. Take a look at
the data below
Table 1
Titles reflecting cultural norms in
the use of the English language
Titles reflecting cultural norms in
the use of Nigerian languages
Mr.
Mrs.
Queen
Princess
Chief
Sir.
Mallam
Alhaji
Emir
Ooni
Oba
Alaafin
Eze
Nze
Ozo
Igwe, etc.
From the data, one observes that the various Nigerian languages have different
titles with which they recognise people or persons in their various societies
unlike the English language in which there are only a handful of titles with
which people or persons are recognized. Because of this, in the use of English
language, the use of ‘chief’, ‘sir’ etc. to refer to or address persons is considered
inadequate in the cultural communicative norms of Nigerian languages.
This kind of ambiguity equally causes pragmatic failure because it fails to
communicate exactly, what the speaker actually has in mind and when this is
the case, the listener is unable to produce adequate response of joy, excitement,
happiness or even anticipation concerning the statement of subject of
discussion.
-
39
4.4.2 Political and Social class distinctions
From the excerpts of the speeches of Nigeria’s eminent persons
presented, it is also observed that while speaking Nigerian languages and the
English language, there is a conscious distinction of political and social class to
which a person or another belongs to. In addition, the norms of the cultures of
these languages also demand that these classes be dully recognised and
respected. One can observe that the use of titles as identified in the first
observation equally serves to distinguish people according to their various
political and social classes. These titles such as Mr., Chief, Her Majesty, Queen,
Mallam, Alhaji, Admiral, Sir, Princess, His Holiness the Pope, President,
Commodore, Major, Lieutenant, Colonel, Governor, Administrator, General,
Brigadier, Prime minister, etc. show that the people being addressed with such
titles belong to a given political or social class and not another. Respect is
equally accorded the bearers of these titles. This is why we can observe
statements denoting expressions of respect to one’s political or social class as
well as one expressing the power or right attached to one’s political or social
class such as:
- His Excellency Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, President of the
Senate, the Speaker House of Representatives, my Lord Chief Justice of
Nigeria, President Olusegun Obasanjo, distinguished Presidents and Heads of
Governments who have graciously honoured us with their presence today,
leaders of our nation (Inaugural Speech of President Umaru Yar’Adua May
29, 2007)
- I would like to thank President Goodluck Jonathan for his display of
statesmanship….
-
40
- Our founding fathers, Mr. Herbert Macauley, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Chief
Obafemi Awolowo, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto, Alhaji
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Malam Aminu Kano, Chief J. S. Tarka, Mr. Eyo Ita,
Chief Denis Osadeby, Chief Ladoke Akintola….(President Buhari’s
Inaugural speech on May 29, 2015).
- …our future relations with the United Kingdom will be more cordial than
ever, bound together, as we shall be in the Commonwealth, by a common
allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, whom today we proudly acclaim as
Queen of Nigeria and Head of the Commonwealth…. I must express our
gratitude to Her Royal Highness, the Princess Alexandra for personally bringing
to us these symbols of our freedom and especially for delivering the gracious
message from Her Majesty, The Queen. And so, with the words ‘God Save Our
Queen’, I open a new chapter in the history of Nigeria and of the
Commonwealth, and indeed, of the world. (Nigeria’s First Prime Minister,
Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa on October 1, 1960)
- In the name of the Supreme Council of the Revolution of the Nigerian
Armed Forces, I declare martial law over the Northern Provinces of
Nigeria….(Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, on January 15, 1966).
4.4.3 Respect for the populace who constitute a society:
Observations from the excerpt from the speeches presented also show that
cultural norms of both English language and Nigerian languages demand the
respect of the majority (mass of people) that make up a given society.
Respecting them inculcates their collective statements, wishes, desires, needs,
etc. This is also why we can notice the speakers make use of the collective
pronoun ‘we/us’ in their respective speeches. Examples abound in the following
expressions:
-
41
- I am immensely grateful to God who has preserved us to witness this day
and this occasion…. (President Umaru Yar’Adua May 29, 2007)
- I have indeed every confidence that, based on the happy experience of a
successful partnership, our future relations with the United Kingdom will be
more cordial than ever (Nigeria’s First Prime Minister Alhaji Sir Abubaka r
Tafawa Balewa on October 1, 1960)
- Affirming your trust and confidenc