Phonological Variation in Spoken English among Secondary School Teachers in Meru. A

study of Imenti North District

1.1 Introduction

Along with economic globalization, English has increasingly become the medium of

communication around the world both in local and global contexts. The realization of importance

of English highlights the necessity of every country to have its people become better equipped

with English performance. Inevitably, this necessity is also applicable to Kenya. Spoken

language comprehension is among the most complex cognitive abilities of humans–a transient

physical signal that is noisy, incomplete and potentially ambiguous must be comprehended,

typically under non-ideal listening conditions. One process along this route to comprehension is

the mapping of acoustic-phonetic features extracted from the signal on to a lexical

representation. The process of word recognition is complicated by the highly variable nature of

spoken language. Of particular interest here is that the realization of segments can vary as a

function of the surrounding segments via such phonological processes as assimilation and

deletion. The variability that occurs as a result of phonological processes presents a particular

challenge for listeners in the process of word recognition because phonological processes can

result in large differences among alternative pronunciations.

Socio-phonetics focuses on the interrelation between phonetic/phonological forms and social

variables. It seeks to provide explanations of how language change originates and spreads

through different communities (Foulkes 2005). In Wolfram’s (1991) view, the linguistic variable

is the basic conceptual tool to relate variation in language to social factors. Wolfram and

Schilling-Estes (2000) define the linguistic variable as a varying linguistic structure (e.g.–ing/in’)

which may correlate with social factors such as region or status, or with linguistic factors such as

linguistic environment.

Variants of a phonological variable can be identified either auditorily or acoustically. In auditory

identification, phoneticians rely entirely on their own impression of a sound (Hayward 2000),

whereas acoustic identification requires technological aids because acoustics studies the physical

properties of speech sounds. Auditory techniques are used in measuring relatively discrete

variants, which are easily coded or discriminated, while acoustic measurements are used in

underpinning continuous variation, i.e. differences that cannot be distinguished auditorily. They

translate speech signals into visual representations (Milroy and Gordon 2003). These

instrumental techniques allow investigators to take a closer look into the details of particular

speech components that are not auditorily recognizable.

The social variables, on the other hand, affect the probability of linguistic variant selection.

These variables include, among others, gender, age, social class, social network, education,

ethnicity and religion. They differ from one speech community to another because each society

has its own social norms (Trudgill 1983). Each factor has been known to influence the

probability of variant occurrence. As indicated in most correlational studies in sociolinguistics,

males and females differ within each age group, social class, social network, educational group,

ethnicity, race and religion. For instance, females have a higher tendency than males to use the

prestigious varieties in their society. Several explanations have been given in an attempt to

interpret how social factors manipulate individual’s choice of a linguistic variant. Wolfram and

Schilling-Estes (2000) consider matters of identity and personal presentation essential in relating

linguistic differences to social ones. Additionally, rationalizations such as avoidance of ridicule

and stigma, as well as the expression of local or ethnic identification and membership justify a

particular variant selection (Abdel Jawad 1986). Other researchers such as Chambers (1995)

promote the effect of social pressure on the usage of standard or non-standard dialect. This social

pressure is what Labov (1966) refers to as prestige awareness. Language prestige depends on the

social evaluation the upper social class gives to a particular variety of language. This prestige

represents the cosmetic makeover, which determines whether or not a variety is acceptable in

society. Trudge (1983) notes that English is a very important means of establishing and

maintaining relationships with other people. Whenever we speak we cannot avoid giving our

listeners clues about our origins and the sort of person we are. Our accent and our speech

generally show what part of the country we come from and what sort of background we have.

We may even give some indication of certain of our ideas and attitudes, and all this information

can be used by the people we are speaking with to help them formulate an opinion about us.

Many people treat language as one of the facts of life, like breathing and it is true that social life

as we all know it does not exist independently of language. A number of factors have contributed

to a situation in which the use of a particular language comes to be characteristic of a particular

social domain, in much the same way that domains are characterized in England by varieties of

English (Whitey 1974). Fischer (1958: 52) observes that ‘people adopt a variant not because it is

easier to pronounce (which frequently is but not always) but because it expresses how they feel

about their relative status versus other conversations Nevertheless, what might be viewed as

pleasing and satisfactory in one society might not necessarily be so in another. It is against this

background that this study seeks to examine the phonological variation in spoken English among

secondary school teachers in Imenti North District

1.2 problem statement

English has been a lingua franca in various domains of communication such as international

business, academic conferences, diplomacy, science and technology. As a result, the demands for

English skills in all aspects are crucial in response to the importance of English and the impact of

globalization. Despite the constant efforts in developing English education in Kenya, a number

of studies have shown that the achievement of learners has been unsatisfactory. Given the role of

English as an international language which is used in almost domain of communication, amongst

several factors hindering the success of English language learning, English pronunciation of the

learners should be focused. Since pronunciation is a global construct which consists of segmental

(e.g., consonant and vowels) and suprasegmental (e.g., stress, intonation, rhythm, rate, volume),

over the past decade, a number of studies have variedly investigated the area of speaking skills,

including speaking assessment (e.g., Chen, 2001; Li, 2003; Wang 2003), phonology language

acquisition (e.g., Altmann, 2006; Waylan et al., 2006), problems of teaching and learning

speaking skills (e.g., Goodwin, 2001; Lazaraton, 2001). Amongst these studies focusing on

speaking skills, pronunciation is receiving more attention in many classrooms since it is

recognized that persons should primarily acquire as a fundamental skill because it can effect

accuracy and comprehension (Celce-Murcia et al., 2000; Derwing et al., 2006; Hahn, 2004).

Although research studies on speaking skills and pronunciation are common within English as a

second and foreign language, the research of this line with Merians seems to be marginalized. In

light of the shortage of this line of research, despite the importance for successful

communication, this study aims to explore the phonological variation in spoken English among

Merian teachers in Imenti North District with the aim of generating information about phonetic

variation among speakers, and how this variation correlates with social variables.

1.3 Objectives of the study

The study will be guided by the following objectives:

i). To determine the phonological variations of the English spoken by secondary school

teachers in Imenti North District

ii). To establish the correlation of spoken English phonological variation with social

variables of age, gender and residence (urban or rural)

iii). To establish the linguistic features that distinguishes Merian English variety from the

Standard British English.

1.4 Research questions

The study will seek to answer the following research questions:

i). What are the phonological variations of the English spoken by secondary school

teachers in Imenti North District

ii). How does the phonological variation correlate with social variables of age, gender

and residence (urban or rural)

iii). What linguistic features distinguish Merian English variety from the Standard British

English?

1.5 Significance of the study

The study is hopefully going to generate information that will serve to show the need for

describing different varieties of English in Kenya and support adaption of a standard Kenyan

variety that will accommodate Kenya dialects better. The present study is optimistically of

benefit to speech therapists as it acquaints them with the fact that differences in the physical

properties of sounds pronounced may sometimes be a result of social variation rather than

genuine speech impairment. This study may also have implications for teaching patterns of

variation in the pronunciation of the identified phonological variation and their social meanings

in the entire Meru region.

1.6 Delimitations of the Study.

The study was delimited to secondary school teachers in Imenti North District. This target

population is not only accessible but also a good representative. This is based on the fact that

secondary schools in Imenti North District offer basic services offered by other public secondary

schools in Kenya. The study will also be delimited to specified period of time (January, 2011 -

July, 2011).

1.7 Limitations of the Study

The study had the following limitations

There is a dearth of literature on phonological variation in the said study area. Phonological

Spoken English variation may be affected by a multiplicity of factors. Alienating the influence of

all the factors may prove difficult.

The extent to which the study results will be generalized to the larger population of teachers in

Kenya may not be a true representation because of taking a study case of Imenti North District.

Factors phonological variation in spoken English may vary in different environmental situations.

The study may also be limited by inadequate funds and time. Although there may exist such

limitations, the researcher will select a manageable sample size and focus on the aforementioned

objectives.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

When the British withdrew from their African colonies after these had gained independence, they

left something very precious behind: their mother tongue English. Indispensable in many spheres

of public life, the colonizer's language was often retained as an official language. However, the

use of English by large groups of non-native speakers did not remain without consequences.

New words were included in the language, pronunciation and grammar adapted to suit the needs

of the speech community better. As a result, a different type of English, a non-native variety of

English, evolved. In the following section, this study will review of literature related

phonological variation in spoken English.

Theoretical framework

This study intends to use Variation theory, in linguistics, as pioneered by William Labov in the

late 1960s, which is concerned with the fact that languages possess a whole range of resources

for producing a given linguistic expression. The spectrum of variation exists at every level of the

linguistic system, from the way we pronounce certain words to the syntactic forms we choose.

Geographical variation is apparent, even in monolingual countries, from the various dialects

which characterize particular regions. And social variation is evident when the particular forms

of language used are influenced by the social class of the speaker. Linguistic variation between

groups of people is compounded by the variation which exists within the speech of each

individual. For example, English speakers in New York sometimes pronounce the r sound in

words like car, floor and fourth and at other times they omit it. Beyond the finding that all

speakers fluctuate between the inclusion and omission of r, Labov showed that speakers from a

high socioeconomic level tend to pronounce r relatively often. However, r inclusion is more

frequent in the speech of all speakers when they are paying careful attention to their speech in a

formal setting. Evidently, the influence of social class interacts with the particular setting to

determine which speech variant is chosen. In this way, Labov provided the crucial insight that

linguistic variation is not at all random, but is in fact both predictable and systematic.

2.2 Related studies

In this study as in other variation studies it is designed on the assumption that regular patterns of

language variation and change are most easily located in non-standard varieties and in casual

styles. Ongoing changes can be identified by a comparative analysis of the stylistically

differentiated speech of different social and gender groups and generation cohorts and are most

evident in the casual speech of individuals who belong to neither the highest nor the lowest

social classes. Males and females adopt variations at different rates. Relevant historical and

dialectological information enables the direction and rate of change to be more reliably inferred.

Acoustic analysis in conjunction with variationist analysis may be used to provide detailed

descriptions of variants and to corroborate auditory judgements. Instrumental analysis offsets

the limitations of conventional auditory categorisation and permits new insights into the

dynamics of variation and change. Phonological theories make predictions about possible and

impossible patterns of variation. but seldom take account of variationist work. There is evidence

that variationists for their part are increasingly currently seeking phonological frameworks which

can accommodate their findings (Nagy & Reynolds, 1997) although this has had relatively

limited impact to date.

Mees (1987) provides an important background to this study in demonstrating the advantages for

sociolinguistic analysis of a phonetically detailed description of the variants of ltl (in Cardiff

English). Also relevant to this work was the pilot work carried out by Hartley (1992) on

voiceless stop realisations in the speech of 16 Tyneside children eight boys and eight girls

(Hartley. 1992: Milroy et al. 1994a: 1994b). It was shown that girls preferred glottal variants

whereas boys used more glottalised variants.

The sociolinguistic interview

A major shift in research techniques occurred with the publication of Labov’s work on English in

New York City (1966). His description of urban speech was based on a study of 88 individuals

from a socially stratified random sample, consisting of male and female speakers from three age

groups and four social classes (identified on the basis of education, occupation, and income).

Labov showed that variation in the speech of the individual was a reflection of variation in the

social group by illustrating how the most extreme case of stylistic variation in the use of /r/ by a

single speaker was in conformity with the overall pattern exemplified in group scores of the

different social classes (summarised in Chambers, 1995, pp. 18-21).

Labov’s work on language use in New York City provided a blueprint for current methods of

investigating variation in language use. As part of his research on the Lower-East side of New

York City, he developed the sociolinguistic interview, the corner-stone of sociolinguistic

research today. The sociolinguistic interview aims at eliciting linguistic data in different speech

contexts. It comprises an informal part (consisting of free conversation) for eliciting vernacular

or local use, and a formal part (consisting of a reading passage, word lists and minimal pairs) to

elicit various degrees of formal or standard language use. Labov (1966) identified nine

contextual styles from casual to formal, and associated all nine types with channel cues (i.e., cues

that signal change from one style to another). For example, by initiating a topic such as

childhood games or traumatic life-threatening events the interviewer may achieve changes in the

speech of the interviewee resulting in a less formal style, approximating or arriving at the desired

more natural, vernacular speaking mode. The technique of inducing style change with this kind

of prompt has been widely employed in sociolinguistic research (for example, Bayard, 1995;

Holmes & Bell, 1988). Thus the sociolinguistic interview usually starts with an informal free

conversation, followed by increasingly formal language tasks that demand more attention to

language use on the part of the respondent. The interviews often take up to two hours to

complete (Holmes, Bell & Boyce, 1991).

History and status of English in Kenya

English found its way to Kenya in the late 19th century (Sure 1991a: 245) with British

missionaries, who taught a small African elite the language for the implementation of the British

policy of indirect rule (Skandera 1999: 11). During Kenya's time as a British colony from 1920

onwards, English nonetheless remained the language of the white community and the

government. After Kenya gained independence in 1963, English was kept as the official

language and medium of instruction in schools, which facilitated a wider spread of the language

within the population (Sure 1991a: 245). Concurrently, its role as the language of education,

administration, commerce and modernisation increased in importance (Abdulaziz 1991: 393). In

1974 English was replaced by Swahili as the official language, but reintroduced as the language

of parliamentary debates in 1979 (Mwangi 2003: 5). Currently, the status of English is not

unanimously described by scholars. Whereas some mention Kiswahili as the only official

language, others argue that English is official, too. A third group of scholars cites English as

having a co-official status (Skandera 1999: 11). Obviously, Kenya's constitution lacks a clear

definition and leaves this issue open to interpretation. The importance of English in Kenya is

however beyond all doubt. Far more revealing than a discussion about technical terms is thereby

a look at the functions of English in Kenyan everyday life, where English plays a dominant role

in the public sphere. Skandera (1999: 20) reports that "the use of English is functionally

distributed over a number of domains, including parliament, high court, civil service, primary to

tertiary education, radio, television, the press, creative literature, business, advertising, and

traffic, vehicle, and shop signs." Looking at this long list, it is not surprising that Sure arrives at

the evaluation that although English might be a minority language in terms of its number of

speakers, it resembles a majority language in terms of its functions (1991a: 246).

One of the most important and determining factors for the fate of a language in a country is the

government's 'language in education' policy, because in an ESL country a second language is

predominantly acquired through the education system. In Kenya, English is medium of

instruction from year 4 onwards (Sure 1989: 56). There are parallels discernable between the

number of years a Kenyan spent in educational institutions and the proficiency achieved in the

English language. The longer the period of formal education, the closer it approaches Standard

English. As a result, a triglossic situation can be recognized for English in Kenya:

Figure 1 : Triglossic situation and level of education in Kenya

People graduating from university are almost undistinguishable from speakers of International

English, except for their pronunciation. At first sight, lexical and grammatical features in general

do not show conspicuous traces of deviance (Mwangi 2003: 7). This acrolectal variety is

probably rare, since only 1 percent of the population has enjoyed tertiary education (Skandera

1999: 16). The majority of people speak English on a mesolectal level, which is intelligible but

entails a lot of phonological and grammatical features of an indigenised English (KenE)

(Mwangi 2003: 8). People who can be assigned to this group have usually attended secondary

school. Nevertheless, there are Kenyans who have only finished primary school or have not

attended school at all. Their exposure to English has then been extremely limited, which results

in their speaking a basilectal variety of English, in other words 'broken English' (ibid. 7).

Another influential factor on the competence of English is a person's occupation, because job

tasks dictate the quantity and quality of English necessary (Schmied 1991: 47). Furthermore, the

geographical location is determination. It has been observed that English proficiency of pupils

attending a rural school differs markedly from pupils of urban areas. With a lack of qualified

teachers in rural areas and a tendency to use the mother tongue there, rural pupils do not reach

acrolect

mesolect

basilect

University

Secondary school

Primary school

the same command of English as their urban counterparts (Mwangi 2003: 8). Mwangi (2003)

used primary school children; this study identifies a gap here and seeks to investigate the

correlation between phonological variation with social variables of age, gender and residence.

English in Kenya – Kenyan English

A number of linguists have dedicated themselves to the description of English in Kenya. Some of

them are for example Hancock/Angogo (1982), Zuengler (1982), Okombo (1986), Sure

(1989/1991) or Schmied (1986/1991). Results indicate that there are distinct features of KenE in

the areas of phonology, vocabulary and grammar: Reliable findings on phonological features

were provided by Schmied (1991a). By means of a quantitative analysis, he showed for each

phoneme to what extend Kenyan pronunciation varies from Standard English. As a result, his

study proves that there are distinct national features of KenE, such as

1. a levelling of differences between long and short vowels

2. a lack of central vowels

3. the monophthongization of diphthongs

It must however be acknowledged that these features are not unique for KenE, since they are

prominent in almost all new varieties of English as, for example, Jamaican English or Black

South African English. More distinct for Kenya are the following characteristics, which are

specific to the four linguistic groups Central Bantu, Western Bantu, Kalenjin and Luo. They have

been termed 'subnational features' (Schmied 1991a: 425-426) and are unlike national features

stigmatised (Mwangi 2000: 2):

1. the devoicing of voiced sounds and vice versa among western Nilotes and the Central

Bantu,

e.g. /k/ vs. /g/ - pen/ben, boy/poy,

/t/ vs. // - chair/share, wash/watch

2. the pronunciation of /l/ as /r/ sound by the Central Bantu,

e.g. fry/fly, pray/play

3. the insertions or deletions of nasals before voiced stops by some Central Bantu,

e.g. *saland (salad),

*goond (good),

*had (hand)

4. the dropping of initial /h/ and its inclusion where it does not exist by some Central Bantu,

e.g. hair/air, air/hair

Two extensive corpus-based studies on grammatical aspects of Kenyan English were exercised.

Hudson-Ettle (1998) examined different strategies of subordination in different text types and

Mwangi (2003) gave a comprehensive analysis of prepositions in Kenyan English comparing

their usage with British English. Mwangi's findings prove that there are differences between

these two varieties with regard to frequencies with which certain prepositions are used and the

collocational patterns in which they occur. She further exhibited semantic restrictions and

expansions in the meanings of several prepositions (Mwangi 2003: 241). Schmied has noted that

"grammatical analysis is still underdeveloped" (Schmied 1990b: 259). This study seeks to

identify linguistic features distinguishing Merian English variety from the Standard British

English.