"Nwanne M Peter, Nwanne M Paul": The Errors in English We Didn't Know Were Errors

By

Obododimma Oha

The Nigerian English as a Second-language context could be full of interesting challenges and surprises. There are creative reuses and there are errors.

Why would there not be errors? First, English is not the native language. This meant interference from the knowledge of the native language.

The children' s teachers shared in this interference, although they had attained higher education. Native use is native use. The nonnative expert needs some humility here.

There are many other factors, including physiologies, teaching methods, etc.

It was our days in the primary school in English as a Second Language context. There were some words that we uttered but didn't know were wrong. Either the adults from whom we heard them uttered them wrongly, or  we heard one thing and uttered another. Or what we thought we heard was not what was uttered!

The main contexts of this experience was songs. Usually, the learners were many. So it was difficult to make sure each child heard and repeated what was heard rightly. In a song, it was given:

(1) I want to live eternal life

     God save my soul

But we sang:

I want to live internal life

God save my soul

I hope that God understood. Whether the singers wanted to live eternal life internally or to live internal life eternally, it mattered less. God should understand. The words, "eternal" and    "internal" are related, only that they have allowed some syllables to separate them. Thanks to the poet looking for a rhyme. They are together again!

Song learners who are also second-language learners do face a lot of challenges. Interference is just one of them. A sound in the song that they are learning in English may resemble the one that they have in the first or indigenous language. This could cause the problem of generalisation. Thus they would begin to utter the wrong sound.

Learners, faced by interference problem, may alter original words. A case that could be cited is that of "covenant, " wrongly realised as "convenant." This alteration is common among the semi-literate and may even be considered appropriate and fashionable.

Another interesting case is seen in (2) below:

(2) Two little doves sitting on a branch

One named Peter

One named Paul

Wrongly realised as

Two little doves sitting on a branch

Nwanne m Peter

Nwanne m Paul

Curiously, poetry class is the context in Nigeria, an English as a second-language environment. In that context, we can imagine strange uses of language.

"One named Peter"and "One named Paul" are uttered as "Nwanne m Peter/Nwanne m Paul." This is simply a case of taking the English sounds as Igbo sounds or mistaking of English words as Igbo words, thinking that what was heard was the English word. The English expression, "one named, " sounds like the Igbo "nwanne"!

Some errors become style when they become popular and are used regularly. This seems to be the case with "brother" ("broda") in Nigerian English. Same for "sister" ("sista") and "uncle." As in

(3) Broda/ Sista welcome.

Broda or Sista may not be from the same womb with the speaker. Just a big boy or girl who is socially more important or can offer gifts to the speaker. It is therefore an encoding or suggestion of respect. Same for "uncle" who may not in any way be related to the speaker.

Paradoxically, a brother is not a brother and sister is not a sister in this error speech. It is hoped in the teaching of the language that one day a brother would become a brother and a sister sister. Just hope that informs teaching methods.

Error is just a stage. The children would surely pass this stage and something would take over. Either they unlearn and relearn or they inflict their error on the society.

A Move Prompted by the Other Move: Learning from Comments on Updates

By

Obododimma Oha

It is now known that readers' comments on updates on Facebook walls are important fields that can  expand the discourse. Facebook itself has been idealised as a classroom. It is not only that teachers can use update fields as virtual classrooms, creating groups for courses they teach, but comments on updates can throw more light on issues and educate readers. Thus, there are classroom comments that are group dealings and there are classroom comments that are merely imagined.

Although comments on Facebook, which are sometimes visualised, are means of helping resdership, we know that some people comment just to run others down and to advertise themselves. That means that they are not just there to help. They are there to kill!

More on visual comments. These may be stereotypical, being used in the same form in another update.

Nothing new added. It may be giggle, clapping, laughing, etc.

Thus, they could reveal attitude to people, issue at stake, the update, a comment, etc.

Also, comments represent the idea of free participation in public debate. But they are subject to censorship. Wall owners can delete comments or even block commenters! But it  is not always good to act in anger and delete comments. In making comments we can expose ourselves. Our wisdom and foolishness would show. Our enlightenment and ignorance would be exposed. Just like the update itself that exposes the updater.

Types of comments we can find are worth noting:

(1) Comments on other comments;

(2) Comments that have no direct relevance to the update;

(3) Commenting as a routine to boost the ego of the person who has made the update;

(4) Comments that extend the discourse in the update.

Some comments focus on other comments. This is not necessarily bad or diversionary. It is an attempt to extend or expand the discourse. Actually, comments expand and extend the discourse. It is natural that a comment that invites another is treated as an extension.

Comments on other comments are follow-up moves in the discourse. The Initiation move is actually the update. It is  what has prompted a reaction or response.

One problem is that making comments on comments without first reading the update may lead to another error of diversion.

This brings me to a class of comments that I find interesting: comments that have no direct relevance to ongoing discourse. The commenters seem to leave them to fulfill all righteousness. It's as if commenting is a must and so people commenting have complied as required.

This reminds me of some people not waiting for the typing of the update to be completed before making their comments. Why the rush? The author of the update may still have some editing to do!

What else do we expect of discourse in the public space? Some contributions would merely cause confusion or try to disrupt a coherent and ongoing one.

Commenters may also show an awareness of the need to avoid infringement on other's wants as in normal conversation, wants like includedness, abilities, and pursuits. Interestingly, Facebook has been developed to help readers clearly indicate whom the comment is addressing. Specificity is ensured through the mentioning of linked names, not just through the normal flow of the discussion.

We expect a comment to extend the discourse. A comment can extend the discourse by

(1) Citing another case that could throw more light on  the issue at stake, make a refutation, etc. Such extensions provide useful inroads to intertertextuality or cohabitation of texts. Indeed, updates invite other texts, making intertextuality unavoidable.

(2) A comment can extend the discourse by addressing another aspect of the theme that is not given attention. Readers may be interested in this trajectory.

Indeed, we may be educated through comments. That is one reason we should not treat them as something unimportant.