CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0       Background of the Study

This research work is a sociolinguistic study of language choice in selected multilingual speech communities in Nigeria with a view to ascertain whether the multilingual societies in question share common characteristics or are divergent in their use of language. Much as sociolinguists are agreed that sociolinguistics is the study of relationship between language and society, they are interested in explaining why people speak differently in different social contexts. They are also concerned with identifying the social functions of language and the way it is used to convey social meaning, (Hudson, 1998; Romaine, 2000; Yul-Ifode, 2001; Wardhaugh, 2006; Holmes, 2008). The interface between language and society therefore lies in the extent to which one influences the other. Multilingualism, a sub-field of sociolinguistics is defined as the act of using or promoting the use of multiple languages, either by an individual speaker or by a community of speakers, (Fishman 1972; Spolsky, 1998; Wardhaugh, 2006). Multilingualism is becoming a social phenomenon governed by the needs of globalization and cultural openness, hence it requires close scrutiny. Moreover, most areas in several parts of the world today are inhabited by diverse linguistic families and groups. This diversity of language within a given area or locality also means that a people‟s social and economic structures may vary. This diversity of language according to Dorian (1981) leads to unavoidable concept of multilingualism among the local speakers. Hence, this research attempts to compare factors that constrain language choice in three multilingual speech communities in Nigeria and its implications for the speakers.

It has been established by scholars in this field, (Fishman, 1972; Spolsky, 1998; Holmes, 2008; Bamgbose, 1991, and a host of others) that language choice in a multilingual speech community is not a random matter of momentary inclination but constrained by certain extra-linguistic factors. That, Nigeria is a multilingual nation is not contestable. However, within this multilingual, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation, inhabits a number of speech communities where more than one language is used in communication simultaneously. Such speech communities and the choice they make of the various languages they speak and the implications of such choice(s) is the concern of this study. One may be tempted to argue that a number of studies have already been conducted on one speech community or the other in Nigeria, particularly the choice that speakers make in those communities. The question therefore is, can the understanding of factors that influence code choice in one speech community be sufficient to generalize that all multilingual speech communities in Nigeria will behave the same way in their code choice? If the answer to this question cannot be given in the affirmative, then there is need to compare multilingual speech communities in Nigeria to determine their

similarities or otherwise hence the focus of this study.

In this regard, three (3) multilingual speech communities spread across Nigeria have been selected for comparison. They are: Billiri in Gombe, Sabongida Ora, in Edo and Zuru in Kebbi states. These three communities have been chosen to represent the diverse nature of the Nigerian society, so that the outcome can reflect the diversity. Therefore, Billiri represents North-East, Sabongida Ora, South-South and Zuru, North West.

1.1  A Brief Historical Background of the Selected Speech Communities

1.1.1 Billiri

Billiri town is located in southern part of Gombe State of Nigeria and it is the headquarters of Billiri Local Government. It has a population of 202,144 as at 2006 population census. The original inhabitants of the town are referred to as Tangale. According to Ankruma (2005:134), the Tangale people who also speak the language called Tangale believe themselves to have come from a place called Yemen (in the Middle East) and from there they came through Egypt to Ngazargamu in the present day- Borno State. Tangale is grouped among the languages belonging to West Chadic subgroup of languages of Afro-Asiatic language family. This source also claims that the people later migrated to a place called Kufto in the present Dukku Local Government in

Gombe State from where the Tangale people and their kins; the Tera, Bolewa, Waja and Longuda went different ways each to its present settlement.

The Tangale people share borders with Chongom now Kaltungo, Kamo, Awak, Waja and

Tula-Wange in the east, while in the north they are bordered by Akko, Tera, Bolewa and Jukuns. It is believed that the Tangale people have been in their present settlement for over three hundred (300) years, (Ankruma, 2005). The ethnic group comprises of seven clans namely: Tangaltong, Tal, Kalmai, Banganje, Tanglang, Todi and Nate. Ankruma further asserts that people of various background continued to trickle into and to conglomerate around present day Tangale hills and plains most of whom traced their origin to the middle east through Egypt and Chad basin. They spoke dialect of a Protolanguage that some historical sources call Rogdo, which eventually metamorphosed into

Tangale language, (Ankruma, 2005). 

Other authors like Attah (2004) and Gwani (1999) corroborated Ankruma‟s claim. In a detailed account of the origin of Tangale people, Gwani argues that people of Kaltungo also speak a similar Tangale dialect with that of the seven clans of Tangale which suggests that they might have originated as one and the same people.

In view of the long history of migration coupled with the present location of Billiri as a local government headquarters and a sub-urban settlement, people of diverse background have settled in the town thereby making it a multilingual setting. Therefore, in addition to the mother tongue of the people, Hausa is widely spoken by majority of the inhabitants. Similarly, other languages like Fulfulde, Tula, Lunguda, Waja are also sometimes spoken in Billiri town.

1.1.2  Sabongida-Ora

Sabongida-Ora Community of Edo state of Nigeria inhabits a local government called Owan and the language spoken by the group is equally called Owan. However, by virtue of linguistic classification in which they have been grouped as a member of proto-North Central Edoid language (Elugbe, 1973), Edo is generally spoken. In addition to this, many of the inhabitants also speak Yoruba, while Etsako the language of their immediate Northern neighbours is also commonly spoken in addition to Nigerian pidgin and English language for the educated speakers.

Even though, they are presently referred to as Owan, historically they are called Luleha and they occupy the present day Owan West Local Government of Edo State. Sabongida Ora, the biggest town in the Luleha speaking area is the headquarters of the local government, and by 2006 Nigerian census they are said to have numbered 97,388.

Obuhoro (2001) puts forward that historically, the origin of the Luleha people is traceable to one Irimo who is believed to have had a Yoruba ancestry. According to this source, Irimo (Aremu in Yoruba language) is believed to have migrated from Ile-Ife before settling down in Luleha land around 1200 AD. Obuhuro submits that Aremu is the son of Izoduwa or Oduduwa of Ile-Ife, the present day Osun State. Aremu migrated first to Ibini or Benin in the company of Oranmiyan, where they met Oba Awaika (pronounced Eweka) who was the then Oba of Benin. He further claims that Aremu moved from Benin with his wife Ooto to his distant cousin in Uokhai. As a result of disagreement, Aremu separated from his cousin and moved further to Kukuruku land that had a mixture of

Hausa, Ebira, Yoruba and other migrants. They were called Kukuruku because during the Nupe war, when the Nupes came to capture them, they shouted as cockcrows to deceive their captors. The popular market where the Yorubas and the Kukuruku people traded in Etu (meaning antelope in Yoruba) was called Oja Etu. Oja Etu or market for antelopes blossomed and was synchronized as “Jattu” located in Auchi land or Etsako. However, other Ora historians according to Obuhoro disagree with the Yoruba origin of Luleha. They are of the opinion that their origin is traceable to Benin. They claim that when

Obazua and Okpame met at Uokha, a bond was formed. When the father of Okpame (the Oba of Benin) died, he was called back to inherit the throne of the Oba of Benin.

In view of the above historical accounts, it is therefore not surprising that Luleha or Owan or Ora people became multilingual where languages like Yoruba, Ebira and even Hausa are used simultaneously in conversation, in addition to the indigenous language of the people.

1.1.3 Zuru

Zuru is the headquarters of Zuru Local Government of Kebbi State. The inhabitants of this town and the surrounding villages are usually referred to as Dakarkari. However, historical sources argue that several groups like Kalawa, Lilawa and Bangawa and even

Hausa came together to form this town, hence the multilingual nature of the settlement. According to Regnier, (2003:3) Zuru Local Government is sub-divided into three districts: Zuru, Dabai and Fakai. According to this source, often in the past anthropologists described the indigenous people of this area as Dakarkari. However, around this dominant group are the Fakai people considered as sub-group of Dakarkari and the Bangawa. This source argues that the Fakai, the Dakarkari (Lela), and the

Bangawa (Lyase) are three distinct language groups. Their languages, along with the Duka languages belong to the Northern group of the Kainji branch of the Benue-Congo sub-family.

Similarly, Dettweiler and Dettweiler (2005:3) assert that the indigenous people of Zuru and its environs; these include Danko-wasagu L.G.A, Sakaba L.G.A. and the Northern part of Rijau L.G.A. in Niger state are Lela speaking. However, while the Hausas refer to them as Dakarkari, they refer to themselves and their language as Lela. Grimes (1992:320) describes the language under the heading Lela and gives Lalawa, Clela, Kolela, Cala-cala, Chilela and Chilala as alternate names to this. Regarding the origin of the Lela people before their present location in Zuru, (Harris, 1938:116) suggests that they along with the Bangawa, the Kelawa and the Dukawa were a subject people in the Kingdom of Kebbi, which reached the height of its power in the 16^th century. The

“Dakarkari” (i.e. Bangawa, Kelawa and Lela) are said to have been the “foot soldiers” of

the king of Kebbi, from which occupation they obtained their Hausa name (Gunn and Conart 1960:32). Around 1700, the Hausa peoples of Zamfara and Gobir rebelled against their Kebbi overlords and separated from the Kingdom of Kebbi. Harris argues that it is likely that the subject peoples, still loyal to Kebbi but wanting to farm undisturbed by the continual internecine warfare of the Hausas, migrated southwards to set up a small buffer state. He identifies the Bangawa and the Kelawa as originating from an area near the

Kebbi River and the Lela, coming from further east, as “The Zamfara Element” of the buffer state (Harris, 1938:114). In view of this historical antecedent, it is clear that the Zuru people had always been multilingual having migrated with Hausas over a long period and yet still retain their indigenous languages. Therefore, their warlike disposition, the several encounters they had with other groups, particularly the Hausas and their constant migration have seemingly contributed to their multilingual nature.

1.2       Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to find out the motivation for and patterns of language choice in the selected communities and the consequences of such choice(s) on the indigenous languages of these areas. Furthermore, the study compares the selected intra-group multilingual speech communities in Nigeria to determine the impact of multilingualism on the societies and the various implications of the choice that they make of the various languages they speak; whether multilingualism and language choice hold similar implication for all the speech communities selected for this study. The study enables us to ascertain the similarities and differences among multilingual speech communities and their behaviour towards the various languages they speak. It can also assist in determining whether all the domains of language behaviour elicit similar responses from speakers or not in the different multilingual speech communities.

It is true that a lot of scholarly researches have been conducted on multilingualism in Nigeria like Bashir (1996), who studied language choice and use in Maiduguri

Metropolis to determine languages most frequently used and the reasons for their usages,

Ayemoni (2006), who examined the role of code-switching and mixing in childhood in a Yoruba speech community and Ugot (2010), that studied language choice in Biase, Cross Rivers State, Nigeria where she ascertained the role of code-switching and mixing in a multilingual speech community, but no attempt has been made to the knowledge of the researcher to compare multilingual speech communities in Nigeria, particularly in relation to the various factors that constrain or influence choice of codes in the various speech communities.

In view of the above background, and with due regard to the above previous studies on language choice in multilingual settings, it is necessary to compare multilingual speech communities from different parts of Nigeria in order to ascertain whether multilingualism produces similar consequences in all multilingual settings in Nigeria. 

1.3       Research Questions

The study therefore attempts to provide answers to the following questions.

1.     What factors influence code choice in Billiri, Sabongida-Ora and Zuru?

2.     To what extent are factors that influence code choice in these communities?

3.     What similarities exist among Billiri, Sabongida-Ora and Zuru?

4.     What domains of language behaviour elicit responses from the speakers in Billiri,

Sabongida-Ora and Zuru?

5.     To what extent do speakers maintain, converge or diverge from their addresses in

Billiri, Sabongida-Ora and Zuru?

6.     What are the implications of language choice on the speech communities?

1.4       Aim and Objectives

The aim of this study is to determine whether all multilingual speech communities share common characteristics or they are divergent in their use of the various languages.

The objectives of the study are to:

1.     establish whether similar or different factors influence choice of codes in all multilingual speech communities.

2.     identify the patterns of choice in the selected communities so as to understand their similarities and differences.

3.     determine the various constraints faced by the speakers in the communities regarding language choice.

4.     gauge the long-term effects of these choices – language shift or language death.

5.     establish how speakers maintain, converge or diverge from their addresses in the selected multilingual speech communities.

6.     ascertain the implications of the choices that speakers make of their various languages in the selected multilingual speech communities.

1.5        Scope of the Study

The scope of this research is to identify the factors that determine code choice in the selected multilingual speech communities and compare these factors to determine their similarities and differences, the significance and implications of the differences. In this regard, three multilingual speech communities have been selected across three geopolitical zones of Nigeria for comparison, namely: Billiri, North-East; Sabongida-Ora, South-South; Zuru, North-West. The South East and the South West have been excluded because they are largely monolingual in composition.

It is instructive to state that the study is not a contrastive analysis of the systems of the languages involved in the selected speech communities neither is it aimed at analyzing the linguistic features of any of the languages involved, rather it is limited to the choice the speakers make of the various languages in the process of interaction, the motivation for the choice as well as the implications of those choices. These tasks will be undertaken using Communication Accommodation Theory of Howard Giles. The study is both qualitative and quantitative where accommodation theory is used as tool of analysis.

1.6       Justification of the Study

It is a fact that language is an important factor in human communication. Therefore the ability of a group to use two or more languages simultaneously in any communicative event makes it even more intricate. In this regard, a comparative study of language choice in different multilingual speech communities is useful in the following ways:

1.     The study can help researchers to understand the various social factors which constrain the use of the various languages in these communities.

2.     A study of this nature can aid in predicting which code or codes would be appropriate for use in different situations in the various speech communities so as to avoid wrong choice in the wrong domain.

3.     The study can reveal the status of the various languages by the selected communities, thereby determining whether the indigenous languages of the speakers are being threatened.

4.     The study can also benefit language planners and policy makers.

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.