Journal of Pragmatics 135 (2018) 8e23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

“You're not staying in Island sha o”: O, sha and abi as

pragmatic markers in Nigerian English
Foluke Olayinka Unuabonah*, Rotimi Olanrele Oladipupo
Department of English, Redeemer's University, PMB 230 Ede, Nigeria

a rticleinfo
abstract
Article history:
Received 29 January 2018 This paper investigates three pragmatic markers which hitherto have not been discussed
Received in revised form 11 July 2018 in Nigerian English. It examines the meaning, grammatical properties and discourse-
Accepted 12 July 2018 pragmatic functions of these pragmatic markers: o, sha and abi in the International
Corpus of English-Nigeria, from a grammatical-pragmatic approach. The results reveal
that o is an emphasis marker and a mitigation marker, sha is a discourse marker, an
Keywords: attention marker and a mitigation marker while abi occurs as a discourse marker and as
Discourse marker an agreement marker. The three markers are syntactically optional; they mostly occupy
Emphasis marker the clause-final position and are mainly found in informal talks. While o is derived
ICE-Nigeria
from various Nigerian indigenous languages including Yoruba, Igbo and Ishan, sha
Nigerian English
and abi are borrowed from Yoruba. The paper concludes that o may be a likely
Pragmatic marker
Mitigation marker candidate for inclusion in Standard Nigerian English, due to its frequency, distribution
and functions in Nigerian English.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Nigeria is a multilingual nation where English serves as a second and official language, due to her colonial contact
with Britain and the multilingual nature of the country (Awonusi, 2004). English co-exists with over five hundred
indigenous languages (Simons and Fennig, 2017), such as Hausa, Ibibio, Igbo, Tiv and Yoruba, Nigerian Pidgin (NigP)
and a few foreign languages such as Arabic, French and German, which are used in very restricted circles. In Nigeria,
English is used as the language of education, the media, governance and law amongst other official functions (Awonusi,
2004). The English used in Nigeria, otherwise known as Nigerian English (NigE), is a variety of English which is
influenced by Nigerian indigenous languages and cultures (Adegbija, 2004). Different varieties of NigE have been
identified using diverse parameters such as region/ethnicity, social perspective and educational attainment (Banjo, 1971;
Jibril, 1986; Jowitt, 1991; Udofot, 2003; Adegbite et al., 2014). For example, Udofot (2003) identifies three varieties: the
Non-Standard Variety which is used by primary and secondary school certificate holders; the Standard Variety, which is
associated with university graduates and graduates of other tertiary institutions; and the Sophisticated Variety which is
spoken by university lecturers in English and Linguistics who have an extra training in the phonology of English, and
those who have lived in English native-speaking countries. In this paper, we focus on the Standard and Sophisticated
varieties used by Nigerian university graduates, and graduates of other tertiary institutions, since scholars have reiterated
that these varieties should be accepted as the standard for NigE.
Already, there is a plethora of studies which describe the phonological (e.g. Udofot, 2003; Oladipupo, 2015; Gut and
Fuchs, 2017), lexico-semantic (e.g. Alabi, 2000; Wolf and Igboanusi 2003), morphosyntactic (e.g. Fuchs, 2016; Werner
and Fuchs,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: unuabonahf@run.edu.ng (F.O. Unuabonah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.007
0378-2166/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 F.O. Unuabonah, R.O. Oladipupo / Journal of Pragmatics 135 (2018) 8e23
9
2017) and discourse-pragmatic (e.g. Adegbija and Bello, 2001; Ogoanah, 2011; Fuchs et al., 2013; Unuabonah and Gut, 2018)
features of NigE. Some of these studies point to the influence of Nigerian indigenous languages on NigE at different levels of
language. For example at the pragmatic level, Fuchs et al. (2013) show the influence of Yoruba and Igbo on English pragmatic
focus particles even and still in NigE. However, while these works reveal the extended pragmatic usage of English pragmatic
markers (PMs) (e.g. okay in Adegbija and Bello (2001) and as in in Ogoanah (2011)), what has not been fully established is the
introduction of PMs from Nigerian indigenous languages into NigE. This is unlike the case of different varieties of Asian
Englishes where scholars have extensively affirmed the use of discourse particles from Asian languages. This can be seen in
the case of ba, lah, lor meh and ya in Singapore English (Gupta, 2006; Wee, 2010; Leimgruber, 2016), no/na and yaar in
Indian English (Lange, 2009) and lah, meh and lor in Malaysian English (Tay et al., 2016). With this lack of focus on the
inclusion of PMs from Nigerian indigenous languages in NigE, there is limited knowledge and understanding of the kinds of
PMs that occur in NigE, which are bound to show variations when compared with markers in native varieties of English.
In this study, attention will be drawn to three PMs: o1, sha and abi which have been introduced into NigE from
Nigerian indigenous languages, with a view to investigating their meaning, frequency, syntactic properties and
discourse-pragmatic functions in NigE. Examples taken from the International Corpus of English-Nigeria (ICE-NIG) as
shown in (1), (2) and (3) reveal these:

(1) How are you coping with the cold, or has it abated now? In fact, don't envy us
o because the harmattan this year was imported. (ICE-NIG sl 2_07.txt)

(2) A3: okay

B: so this guy
A: but you're not staying in Island sha o
B: no I I stay I stay in Isolo (ICE-NIG con_06.txt)

(3) A: it's only called semantic relation but I think Lyons particularly
B: you wrote sense relations in ANON's course abi
B: I I think that sense relations is another thing I wrote well
(ICE-Nig con4_09.txt)
In this section, we have discussed the background from which this study has been conducted. In Section 2, we explore
PMs in general and present our data and methods in Section 3. In Section 4 we present our results, and then discuss our
findings in Section 5. We finally conclude in Section 6.

2. Pragmatic markers

PMs such as actually, anyway, right and so are syntactically optional linguistic expressions that signal the relation
of an utterance to the linguistic and/or situational context of an interaction (Buysse, 2012). They are expressions which
do not contribute significantly to the semantic meaning of the basic propositional content of an utterance but play crucial
roles in the interpretation of the discourse segment (Fraser, 1996, 2009a). PMs are noted for their meaning potential
(Aijmer, 2013) and have broad textual and interpersonal functions (Brinton, 1996). Textually, they can be used to initiate
or close discourse, serve as a filler or turn-holding device, and repair one's own utterance. Interpersonally, PMs can be
used to express emotions, indicate an attitude or reaction to the hearer or text, and hedge or express politeness (Brinton,
1996; Aijmer, 2013).
Scholars have given PMs different names such as discourse operators (Redeker, 1991), discourse particles (Aijmer,
2002), discourse connectives (Blakemore, 2002), and pragmatic particles amongst others (see Fraser, 2009b; Aijmer and
Simon- Vandenbergen, 2011 for a full discussion on these). In addition, PMs have been studied from different approaches.
These include the discourse-coherence approach (Schiffrin, 1987; Lenk, 1998), the cognitive-pragmatic approach
(Anderson, 2000; Blakemore, 2002), the grammatical-pragmatic approach (Brinton, 1996; Fraser, 1996, 2006) and the
variational pragmatic approach (Aijmer, 2013). This paper finds the grammatical-pragmatic approach suitable for the
analysis of the three PMs under study since it will be necessary to examine, not only the syntactic properties of these
peculiar NigE PMs, but also their discourse-pragmatic functions in NigE. While previous papers on such items (e.g. lah,
meh, lor, ba) in Singapore English have been termed as discourse particles (e.g. Wee, 2010; Leimgruber, 2016), this
paper prefers the use of PMs since these markers have both interpersonal and textual functions (Brinton, 1996; see also
Tan, 2010).
Fraser (1996, 2009a) identify four categories of PMs which include basic PMs such as please and I admit, which indicate
the type of message that the speaker intends to pass across; commentary PMs (frankly, indeed), which signal a comment on
the message conveyed by the speaker; discourse markers such as but and so, which signal a relation between a prior part
of an

1
This is to be differentiated from other types of o in Nigerian indigenous languages. For example, in Yoruba, o can be used as a pronoun or as a negation
marker.
2
Social letters.
3
ICE-NIG uses Transcription 1, 2, 3, etc. for speaker turns. Here, we use A, B, C, etc.
4
Conversations.
utterance and another part of the utterance; and discourse management markers (by the way, in summary), which indicate
“a metacomment on the structure of the discourse” (Fraser, 2009a: 893). In this paper, we categorise the three PMs using these
classifications.

3. Data and methods

The data for this study were extracted from ICE-NIG using AntConc 3.4.4 (Anthony, 2015). ICE-NIG was selected
because it is a corpus that involves texts produced by university educated NigE speakers of eighteen years and above
(see Gut, 2014 for further details). As scholars have reiterated, the variety of English spoken by this group of speakers
should be accepted as the standard variety of NigE (Adegbite et al., 2014). The selection of ICE-NIG is even more
important considering that the study is investigating the use of indigenous PMs in NigE. It is already expected that in the
Non- Standard variety (Udofot, 2003), interference errors from substrate languages will exist. Hence, to properly
determine if indigenous PMs exist in NigE, one will have to examine the variety that is taken as the standard.
Moreover, the Standard and Sophisticated varieties are the ones represented in ICE-NIG, which is part of the
International Corpus of English project (Greenbaum, 1991). It contains 1,010,382 words involving 609,586 words of
spoken texts and 400,796 words of written texts. These include both spoken (e.g. conversations, broadcast interviews,
legal presentations, commentaries, etc.) and written (e.g. social letters, student essays, administrative writings, and
academic writings in different disciplines amongst others) texts (Gut, 2014).
The three PMs under study were chosen based on their relatively high frequencies in ICE-NIG (see Section 4) when
compared with other similar markers such as shebi, shey and oya5 which rarely occur in ICE-NIG. This may indicate that o,
sha and abi are more acceptable to educated NigE speakers than the other three. However, a manual search of the extracted
data revealed instances where o, sha and abi were not used as PMs as shown in (4e13).

(4) cancer can be recognised from its victim according to Professor O O

Ojiodun (ICE-NIG bnew6_08.txt)
(5) functionaries were waiting to submit their various forms like NPC o one NPC
o six NPC o seven and NPC o seven (ICE-NIG bnew_06.txt)
(6) when you're going I tho- you're going to ? eight o'clock mhm okay you call
and find out (ICE-NIG con_07.txt)
(7) he said people from Ilorin they've o- over time disappointed the organisation
(ICE-NIG con_06.txt)
(8) they can say e ku simi ana o mhm yeah e ku isimi ana o how is your yes
resting for yesterday (ICE-NIG con_52.txt)
(9) ah he say the thing cheap o yeah no to me two forty still dey expensive
(ICE-NIG con_04.txt)

In (4), o was used as part of a person's initials; in (5), o formed part of a series of numbers 7; in (6), o formed part of time
while in (7), it indicated a false start. These and other instances where o was used within an utterance produced in a Nigerian
indigenous language or Nigerian Pidgin (as shown in (8) and (9) respectively) were removed from the dataset. Thus, out of
627 instances of o, 441 were removed.

(10) with hope that they will continue with their friendship in sha Allah. I intend to
check on them (ICE-NIG sl_41.doc.txt)
(11) in the first few minutes of play Sha- Tornadoes and back to Sharks Football
Club ? (ICE-NIG com8_53.txt)
(12) You don wash your clothes finish, iron them, buy box, make hair, etc? School
fees no dey sha, but you fit collect pocket money (ICE-NIG sl_06.txt)

5
shebi (N ¼ 10), shey (N ¼ 9) and oya (N ¼ 16). Shebi is an interrogative marker used at the initial or final position in Yoruba while shey is a NigP modified
form of shebi which may also mean right. Oya means come on or let's go.
6
Broadcast news.
7
It is typical of some educated Nigerians, as evidenced in ICE-NIG, to continuously and unconsciously refer to zero (0) as o when calling out a series of
numbers.
8
Spontaneous commentaries.
 In (10), sha formed a part of an Arabic phrase; in (11), it indicated a false start while in (12), it was used within a
NigP expression. Instances of these expressions were discarded. Hence, out of sixty-six instances of sha, eleven tokens
were removed from the dataset.

(13) for paying attention to the Niger Delta even though e never beleful us o
abi no be so (ICE-NIG unsp9_38.txt)
In (13), abi was used within a NigP expression and similar examples were removed. Thus, out of forty-three instances of
abi, seven instances were removed from the dataset.

4. Results

In ICE-NIG, there are one hundred and eighty-six instances of o, fifty-five tokens of sha and thirty-six instances of abi,
which indicate that o has the highest frequency among the three markers in NigE. This may be as a result of the fact that while
sha and abi are borrowed from Yoruba, o is taken from different Nigerian indigenous languages including Yoruba, Igbo and
Ishan. Examples of o in Nigerian indigenous languages can be seen in Yoruba (8), Igbo (14) and Ishan (15) which were
extracted from ICE-NIG 10.

(14) the south south are the ones that are going to work with him ndeke ekele munu
o ? Ikwerre an- meka o an- meka o an- meka o (ICE-NIG unsp_38.txt)
(15) the proper expression should be okhien owie o okay okhien- that yeah that's in
in Benin (ICE-NIG ph11_02.txt)

In the subsequent sub-sections, we analyse the grammatical features and discourse-pragmatic functions of each of
these PMs.

4.1. O as a pragmatic marker in NigE

O is a single letter marker, which is different from interjections such as ah!, oh! and aha! which express emotions
and usually occur at the initial position of an utterance. O occurs in ten different text types in ICE-NIG as shown in Fig.
1. However, while it is found very frequently in ICE-NIG conversations (9 per ten thousand words), it occurs frequently
in legal pre- sentations (4.4 per ten thousand words) and very rarely in the other eight text categories, with normalised
frequencies ranging between 0.2 and 1.5 per ten thousand words. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of o in ICE-Nig.

Fig. 1. The distribution of o across different text types in NigE.

4.1.1. Grammatical properties of o in Nigerian English

O occurs very frequently where it has clausal scope (N 12 ¼ 150), rarely where it has word scope (N ¼ 27) and very rarely
where it enjoys phrasal scope (N ¼ 9). See (16), (17) and (18) respectively:

9
Unscripted speeches.
10
As earlier indicated, these examples were removed from the instances of o that were counted for the present study. However, they are listed here in
order to show that o exists in other Nigerian languages other than Yoruba.
11
Phone calls.
12
Number of instances in the corpus.
(16) No human guides? I sincerely hope I won't get missing in transit o. There
are other things I'ld like to discus and clarify with you, (ICE-NIG sl_05.txt)
(17) D: it depends on the nature of the marriage My Lord
A: on the nature of the marriage
D: yes o
D: if it's a
D: marriage
D: contracted in accordance with the act (ICE-NIG leg_02.txt)
(18) B: so she say ah our pastor our pastor o
B: pastor
A: egusi and ogbono soup
B: since you are not yet married (ICE-NIG con_11.txt)

O occurs very frequently in the final position of utterances (N ¼ 184) and very rarely in the medial position (N 2) as
shown in (19) and (20) respectively.

(19) she said” I just bought a car, but its only a beetle o” Or this couple
who just moved into their apartment, (ICE- NIG SkHo13_12.txt)
(20) E: he put the file beside him there
C: you have to be going o every time
F: don't worry they will do it (ICE-NIG con_13.txt)

In (20), o occurs between the verb phrase have to be going and the adverbial phrase, every time. The medial position is
rarely used because in Nigerian indigenous languages, the main position for o is the final position.
O is mainly found in declaratives (N ¼ 162), it is rarely used in imperatives (N ¼ 21) and very rarely used at the end
of exclamatory utterances (N ¼ 2) and interrogatives (N ¼ 1) as cited in (20) (21), (22) and (23) respectively:

(21) A: is that my note give me my note give me my note o let me put it inside my
bag
A: thank you very much (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)
(22) B: if you give me cold food I won't eat
D: hey this is rain o
C: I'm going to remain dry o but it's well
A: ah we're in trouble o (ICE-NIG con_55.txt)

(23) B: time will come and pass and come and pass before you know it
A: yes
B: the six years or eight years that you can say ah when is it coming to an
end o
A: mhm
A: okay end (ICE-NIG con_45.txt)

4.1.2. The discourse-pragmatic functions of o in NigE

O has two major functions which we shall designate as o1 and o2. O1 can be termed as an emphasis PM which shares some
meanings with emphatic really that occurs clause-finally (see Fraser, 1996). O2 functions as a mitigation marker where it is
used as a softener. O1 (N ¼ 176) occurs more frequently than o2 (N ¼ 11). The two functions of NigE o are discussed in turns.

4.1.2.1. O1 as an emphasis pragmatic marker. As an emphasis PM, o1 emphasises the force of the basic message in an
utterance. This basic message may be epistemic (N ¼ 67) or attitudinal (N ¼ 108) in nature. Table 1 shows the frequency of
the functions of o1. In emphasising epistemic stance, the speakers may use o1 to emphasise reality, certainty, doubt/uncertainty,
lack of knowledge and a hedge as discussed from (i) to (v).
(i) O1 can be used to emphasise reality as in (24):

13
Skills/Hobbies.
(24) A: no you would act they can take a drop
B: it's the timing
B: it's the timing o
A: ANON please
C: ahem
B: I don't have time (ICE-NIG con_03.txt)

Table 1
Distribution of o1 as an emphasis marker based on the basic
message in the utterance.

Function Frequency
Emphasising epistemic stance
Reality 51
Certainty 6
Lack of knowledge 5
Uncertainty 3
Hedge 2
Emphasising attitudinal stance
Evaluation 29
Rejection 15
Attention 12
Agreement 11
Desire/Wish 9
Insistence 8
Warning 8
Surprise 6
Plea 6
Intention 3
Emotional support 1
Total 175

In (24), one of the interactants is being persuaded to help take another to her office in order to interview a set of people.
She, however, complains of having no time for that. The speaker employs o1 to emphasise the reality of her complaint.
(ii) O1 can be used to emphasise certainty as shown in (25):

(25) B: one man just walk up to me and said oga

B: you won't get Okada here o you won't get Okada
A: take a taxi Abuja is
B: the first cab that came to me (ICE-NIG con_06.txt)

In (25) the speaker quotes another speaker who employs o1 to emphasise that in all certainty, the current speaker will
not get an okada14 to convey him/her to his/her destination.
(iii) O1 can be used to emphasise lack of knowledge or understanding as shown in (26) and (27) respectively:

(26) A: I know please ANON help me out

C: you guys
C: sexy girls
A: I met her I don't know her before o
A: is ANON I know (ICE-NIG con_03.txt)
(27) B: let me start browsing
C: mine is
C: I don't understand o mine doesn't look three G it's Hedge now
C: capital
A: let me see (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)

In (26), the speaker uses o1 to emphasise the claim that she has never met the person in question, she only chooses to
help, and in (27), the speaker uses o1 to emphasise his/her lack of understanding of the status of the cell phone.

14
The NigP word for a motorcycle.
 (iv) O1 can be used to emphasise uncertainty as shown in (28):

(28) B: so most of the Hausas if you see any Hausa speaking English
B: is most of the times
B: there might be some people that might have learned it from home o
A: okay (ICE-NIG con_45.txt)

In (28), the speaker expresses the possibility that some Hausa people may have learnt English from home, which is
indicated in the clause through the repetition of might. This is a piece of information that the speaker is uncertain of and
s/he uses o1 to emphasise his/her uncertainty.
(v) O1 can be used to emphasise a hedge as in (29):

(29) A: you know I I can't search

B: ah I'm loving it
B: for now o I'm sure
B: I'm very sure it's not going stay because Nigerian network is nothing to
write home about (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)

In (29), the speaker places a hedge, for now on the clause I'm loving it and then uses o1 to emphasise the hedge in
order to inform the addresee that s/he only loves the three-G network for the time being. The implication is that if the
situation changes, s/he will no longer love the three-G network.
In emphasising attitudinal stance, o1 can be used to emphasise evaluation or judgement, rejection, attention calling,
agreement, desire or want, insistence, warning, surprise, plea, intention, and emotional support as discussed in (vi) to
(xvi):
(vi) O1 can be used to emphasise a positive or negative evaluation as in (30) and (31) respectively:

(30) A: you can't get it

A: mhm it is erm
B: hmm
A it's true
B: mhm
A: ah that's nice o (ICE-NIG con_49.txt)

(31) B: even some of the soldiers are killing

B: some of us
A: mhm
A: okay
A: but thank God that
A: they have removed erm ANON
B: mhm
A: because ANON was a problem o (ICE-NIG con_60.txt)

As it can be seen in (30) and (31), o1 can be used in NigE to emphasise a positive or negative evaluation. In (30), the
speaker employs it to emphasise, positively, her interlocutor's perception of the speaker's stay in a university which she
considers problematic, while in (31), o1 emphasises a negative evaluation of a military general's behaviour towards the
people during a civil unrest in the town where the speaker used to live.
(vii) O1 can be used to emphasise rejection as in (32):

(32) B: okay I don't know if you said it that way

C: that's true I want to do my I want
A: ah ah
A: no o
A: I don't enjoy travelling o (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)

O1 is employed in order to emphasise the rejection of certain viewpoints. In (32), it emphasises the rejection of the idea
that the speaker enjoys travelling.
 (viii) O1 can be used to emphasise the calling of an addresee's attention as in (33):

(33) B: I am an Igbo man

A: mhm okay
B: I'm from Imo State
C: wow
C: eh
A: see your sister o her name is Lo Lo
B: yes
B: I lived my life mostly in Kaduna Sokoto Kano almost
(ICE-NIG con_61.txt)

O1, as an emphasis PM, is used in ICE-NIG on a number of occasions to emphasise the calling of an addressee's
attention to a particular proposition. In (33), the speaker uses it to emphasise the calling of the adddresee's attention to
the fact that the other interlocutor is from his ethnic group.
(ix) O1 can be used to emphasise agreement as in (34):

(34) B: so it's better to be a coward and live than to be courageous and die
A: a coward and be alive
A: a hero
A and erm die
A: yes
B: a courageous man used to live in that house
A: yes o (ICE-NIG con_02.txt)

Speaker A in (34) agrees that the man in question was indeed courageous and uses o1 to emphasise his/her agreement.
(x) O1 can be used to emphasise the expression of desires or wants as shown in (35):

(35) B: I wrote o I was even saying that if this woman see me she will say ah this girl has done expo
C: I wish I can
B: but I wrote it out first because
B: I didn't want it to in fact when I now started writing in my form erm I wasn't even using my brain again
I was now reading it
C: I wish I can cram o (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)

In (35), the speaker states that she wishes she could cram. In order to emphasise the depth of his/her desire therefore,
he/ she adds o1 to the utterance.
(xi) O1 can be used to emphasise insistence as in (36):

(36) A: erm I've come to see you

A: he'll say ah
A: I don't want to see you I'll say no you must see me o
A: I will now stay close to him
C: ANON ?
B: you must see me tonight o (ICE-NIG con_55.txt)

In (36), the speaker presents a hypothetical situation in which s/he uses o1 to emphasise that his/her interlocutor must see
him/her that night.
(xii) O1 can be used to emphasise a warning as in (37):

(37) B: there was one my brother they piss- they post him Jos
A: Jos is better he should
A: not go that
B: but he refused to go
A: ah
A: he should not go to that place o he run for his life (ICE-NIG con_50.txt)
 In (37), o1 is employed to emphasise the seriousness of the warning that the person in question should not go to a
particular town in Nigeria for his service year, due to the civil unrest there.
(xiii) O1 can be used to emphasise a surprise as in (38):

(38) A: he would have gotten up to

A: three thousand naira
B: ?
B: three hundred thousand
A: three hundred thousand naira
A: so uh
A: those those guys have made it big o (ICE-NIG con_36.txt)

In (38), the speaker expresses surprise at the kind of money that some of their collegues would have earned since there
was a long strike by university lecturers. S/he uses o1 to emphasise this surprise.
(xiv) O1 can be used to emphasise a plea as in (39):

(39) A: sweetheart how was the weekend

A: everything is vanity please o
E: if Jesus should come now
A: we are not taking our
E: none of you that have paid school fees here (ICE-NIG con_13.txt)

In (39), the speaker uses o1 to emphasise her plea that her interlocutors should give their lives to Jesus since everything
on earth is vanity.
(xv) O1 can be used to emphasise an intention as in (40):

(40) B: their own is stretch

B: buy and sell
B: how many sheets
D: me I will soon go and be with my wife o
B: eh
A: where (ICE-NIG con_59.txt)

O1 is also used to emphasise the intention of speakers in NigE. For instance, in (40), it is used to emphasise the
intention of the speaker to join his wife in another location.
(xvi) O1 can be used to emphasise emotional support as in (41):

(41) A: erm just erm enjoy let your husband enjoy you small before you know
now you know
A: greet him well o greet him well you know
B: and hu- hug him well
A: greet him well (ICE-NIG con_11.txt)

O1 is used in (41) to emphasise the greeting in the clause greet him well which indicates emotional support for the
addresee. Thus, the speaker uses o1 to emphasise that the speaker is truly interested in the wellbeing of the addresee and her
family members or affairs. The use of o in NigE to emphasise emotional support, evidenced especially in greetings, is a
phenomenon borrowed from Nigerian languages, which can be seen in Yoruba (8), Igbo (14) and Ishan (15) greetings.

4.1.3. O2 as a mitigation marker

O2 can serve as a mitigation marker where it is used to reduce face loss or soften the threat to face of the addressee as
shown in (42) and (43). As a softener, it is used to implicitly show that one is sorry for making an utterance without explicitly
saying that one is sorry.
(42) A: if he enters any research room and he's neglecting me
A: I've told it
C: be patient o
A: se I told you (ICE-NIG con_55.txt)
(43) B: I'm not even thinking of doing
A: ah ah
A: but
A: you're old o
B: old I'm not old
A: how old are you are you not above thirty
B: no I'm not (ICE-NIG con_60.txt)

In (42), the speaker instructs or advises the addressee to be patient and uses o2 to soften the addressee's face loss
created by this instruction or advice while in (43), the speaker informs the addressee that he is old. This, in the Nigerian
socio-cultural context may be face-threatening and which the addressee refutes when he says, I am not old. Hence, the
first speaker uses o2 to soften or reduce the face loss created by this statement.

4.2. Sha as a pragmatic marker in NigE

Sha, a shortened form of Yoruba amosha (anyway, notwithstanding), is a PM which shares similar meanings with
English anyway (see Ferrara, 1997 and Park, 2010 for detailed discussions on anyway). Sha occurs mainly in ICE-NIG
conversations (N ¼ 52), very rarely in other spoken texts such as cross-examinations (N ¼ 1) and phone calls (N ¼ 1), and in
popular writings (N ¼ 1), which indicate that sha is a feature of informal face-to-face interactions.

4.2.1. Grammatical properties of sha

NigE sha occurs very frequently in the final position¼(N 50), and very rarely in the medial position (N 5). Examples
(44) and (45) illustrate this respectively:

(44) [what use would the 12MP be without the sensor for viewing, I really hope
otherwise sha]. (ICE-NIG PTec15_04.txt)
(45) A: erm no no ah no that's not that's not the no
B: that is it
A: at least at least you sha you do some
B: okay I work for like one year or two years (ICE-NIG con_45.txt)

Sha, very often, has clausal scope (N¼ 47), rarely has phrasal scope (N ¼ 7) and very rarely has word scope (N 1) as
shown in (44), (46) and (47) respectively: ¼

(46) B: erm
B: I still want ?
B: last semester sha
B: my my two hundred level my first semester I had
(ICE-NIG con_43.txt)
(47) A: you understand
B: you're not supposed to form
A: anyway
A: sha
A: so
A: erm
A: how are we going to meet (ICE-NIG con_25.txt)

Sha can occur very frequently with declaratives (N ¼ 47), and very rarely with interrogatives (N ¼ 6) and imperatives
(N ¼ 2) as shown in (46), (48) and (49) respectively:

15
Popular writing technology.
(48) B: l- like now
B: I have had many Yorubas
A: anyway anyway anyway anyway
A: eh garri you've had garri sha
B: erm I've heard many Yorubas
B: complaining (ICE-NIG con_45.txt)
(49) A: I say okay okay let's go sha I don't care
A: immediately after I eat
B: mhm (ICE-NIG con_14.txt)

What is peculiar is that the interrogatives are in the form of declarative questions while the imperatives are in form of
hortatives (see Crystal, 2008) which include the phrase let us (let's) and involves the speaker and the hearer.

4.2.2. Discourse-pragmatic functions of sha

Sha, like anyway, has different functions and in this paper, we identify four types of sha in ICE-NIG: sha1 (N ¼ 18),
which is an elaborative discourse marker, sha2 (N ¼ 18), which is a contrastive discourse marker, sha3 (N ¼ 15), which is a
mitigation marker (a sub-type of commentary PMs) ¼ and sha4 (N 4), which is an attention marker (a sub-type of discourse
management markers).
Sha1 indicates that the utterance that it is attached to explains or supports the argument in a preceding discourse
segment. It shares some meanings with elaborative markers in addition or besides (see Fraser, 1996 and compare with
additive anyway in Ferrara, 1997) as shown in (50) and (51):

(50) A: so anybody that if he want to marry then you have married then he's on
his own
B: mhm
B: it's true sha
A: mhm (ICE-NIG con_56.txt)

(51) B: what about you

A: chilled yes
A: I don't have AC
B: no I don't really like chilled water myself sha (ICE-NIG con_36.txt)

In (50), sha1 can be replaced with besides and it is used to signal that the speaker's utterance supports the previous
speaker's utterance, that if the person in question wants to get married, he is on his own. (51) is an interaction between two
friends who discuss the unavailability of chilled water due to lack of power supply. The current speaker uses sha1 to support
her argument that chilled water is not necessary since she does not like it.
Sha2 signals that the utterance it is attached to is in a contrastive relationship with another discourse segment; it can be
replaced with contrastive discourse markers, nonetheless, nevertheless or notwithstanding. In this way, it is similar to
dismissive anyway in Ferrara (1997). Examples (52) and (53) illustrate this:

(52) A: I don't know if he can wait till

A: till the end of the month
E: mhm
A: but let's see how it goes sha (ICE-NIG con_11.txt)

(53) A: it's true

B: erm
A: it's true but
A: we thank God sha we thank God sha but ah (ICE-NIG con_49.txt)

In (52), the speaker is concerned that her father is expected to visit her before the end of the month but may be facing
some constraints and then uses sha2 to indicate that she would wait and see how things turn out notwithstanding. In (53), the
current speaker gives a report of different unpleasant situations occurring in the country and uses sha2 at the end of clause,
we thank God to indicate that despite what is going on, she appreciates God. In fact, sha2 collocates with thank God (N ¼
5). In both
(52) and (53), sha2 collocates with but which further indicates that sha2 is contrastive in nature (see also Ferrara, 1997 on
anyway).
 Sha3 can be termed as a mitigation marker which indicates “the speaker's desire to reduce face loss” (see Fraser, 1996:
183) as shown in (54) and (55). Like o2, sha3 is an indirect way to show that one is sorry for making an utterance without
explicitly saying that one is sorry.

(54) A: ANON has not learnt her lesson with this white men
B: all this Lebanese people
B: hope that it's not Lebanese she's following sha
A: this one is not really Lebanese like that (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)
(55) A: yeah I think
B: maybe I don't know sha
B: think the the list ought to be out by now
B: I don't know sha
A: what are
A: what are they saying about it (ICE-NIG con_36.txt)

In (54), the utterance hope that it's not Lebanese she's following is a declarative question which functions as a warning
and which may threaten the face of both the speaker and the hearer. Thus, the speaker uses sha3 to mitigate the effect of
the face loss. In (55), the speaker indicates that s/he is uncertain of the time a list should be out and this is indicated
through words such as maybe and I don't know which are epistemic markers of uncertainty or doubt (see Biber and
Staples, 2014). The acknowledgement of uncertainty by the speaker leads to the loss of the speaker's face, hence the
speaker uses sha3 to reduce the loss of face. In ICE-NIG, sha3 collocates with I don't know in five cases where it signals the
mitigation of the utterances.
Sha4 is an attention marker which indicates topic continuation, a sub-type of discourse management markers (see Fraser,
2009a). Thus, sha4 shares similar meanings with Ferrara's (1997) resumptive anyway. However, unlike resumptive anyway
which occurs clause-initially, sha4 occurs clause-medially in ICE-NIG as shown in (56):

(56) B: okay you're a master students

A: I've finished
B: you have finished
A: I'm on my PhD now so
B: okay wonderful
A: I now
A: sha went to health centre my sister works there we sha did the test
A: she ran the test she's a medical lab scientist (ICE-NIG con_44.txt)

In (56), the first instance of sha4 occurs between the adverbial now and the verb went while the second instance
occurs between the subject we and the verb, did. In this example, sha4 is used to indicate a continuation of the story
which the speaker is narrating since the other speaker has directed her talk to another topic that relates to her
educational status.

4.3. Abi as a pragmatic marker in NigE

As indicated earlier, NigE abi is borrowed from Yoruba abi or tabi.16 Both Yoruba markers share similar meanings with
the English elaborative marker or while only Yoruba abi shares some meanings with the English PM, right. Thus, NigE abi
has two major functions which we will term as abi1 (elaborative abi) and abi2 (agreement abi). Abi2 occurs more frequently
(N ¼ 32) than
¼ abi1 (N 4) in ICE-NIG. The low occurrence of NigE abi1 may be as a result of the fact that the elaborative
function of abi is shared between abi and tabi in Yoruba. The grammatical properties of the two forms of abi differ and are
discussed under each of the forms.

4.3.1. Elaborative abi in NigE

Abi1 may occur between phrases (N ¼ 2) or between clauses (N 2) as shown in (57) and (58) respectively. It has a
textual function where it can be used to indicate a reformulation or replacement of a proposition as shown in (57) or to
indicate optionality as shown in (58):

16
Yoruba tabi is not found in ICE-NIG.
(57) A: they are so happy that ah
B: ah
A: my son got admission to University of Ife abi Obafemi Awolowo
University (ICE-NIG con_45.txt)

(58) E: if you see the mini ahem

E: is it ma- micro abi what did they call it
C: no erm he did not say so is this one enough
A: micro mini (ICE-NIG con_11.txt)
In (57) the speaker informs his/her addressee that his/her parents are happy that the speaker's son got an admission into
University of Ife and immediately replaces it with Obafemi Awolowo University (which is the new name that was given
to the University of Ife in 1987). The speaker uses abi1 to indicate this replacement rather than use English or, rather or I
mean. In (58), the interrogative sentence is it ma- micro abi what did they call it contains two interrogative clauses: is it
ma-micro and what did they call it [?]. Both are connected with abi1.

4.3.2. Agreement abi in NigE

Abi2, very often, has clausal scope (N ¼ 20) and rarely occurs with phrases (N ¼ 6) or with words (N ¼ 4) as shown in
(59),
(60) and (61) respectively. However, unlike right in SinE which cannot stand alone (see Tan, 2010), abi2 in NigE can stand
alone (N ¼ 2) as shown in (62).

(59) C: there's no any other

C: his ANON is not coming here abi
E: no ? Bro ANON ? (ICE-NIG con_11.txt)
(60) A: let me look for that picture
A: as in the dress was too scandalous
B: her dress abi
A: I can't I don't wear (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)

(61) A: what's bulala

C: cane
A: cane abi
C: in Hausa (ICE-NIG con_09.txt)

(62) C: I I remember that when he ate he said he remembered home

B: children
C: abi
B: yes
C: mhm (ICE-NIG con_11.txt)

In (62), one of the speakers states that a friend of theirs remembered his home while the second speaker mentions
children as an addition, to which the first speaker affirms by saying abi.
For the most part, abi2 occurs in the final position of utterances (N ¼ 28) and rarely occurs in the initial position of words
(N ¼ 2) as shown in (61) and (63) respectively.

(63) B: I expected a B and I got a C

A: abi now
A: you always aim for the best (ICE-NIG con_46.txt)

Thus, abi2 can occur both in the initial and final position of words but only occurs in the final position of clauses or
phrases. In cases where abi2 has word scope, it indicates confirmation of another speaker's proposition such as in (63) where
the first speaker stated that he expected a B but got a C. The second speaker confirms this by saying abi now and then fully
states you always aim for the best.
When abi2 occurs at the final position of an utterance, it changes the utterance from a declarative to an interogative as
shown in (64) which requires an answer (see also Tan, 2010 for right).

(64) A: ? I'm fasting today

B: ah okay
A: yes
A: so we wait small for the tea to
A: to be ready abi
B: yes (ICE-NIG con_12.txt)
 In (64), the first speaker states that they must all wait a bit for the tea to be ready and then uses abi2 to seek
confirmation of this proposition; the addresee answers by saying yes.
Abi2 has interpersonal functions as it shares similar meanings with English discourse marker right where it is used to
indicate agreement or confirmation (see Naya, 2006; Tan, 2010) as shown in (65) or seek the confirmation of propostions
as cited in (66):

(65) B: ah they are all fine

A: they are fine
B: yeah
A: abi
A: okay
A: but me I used to have some problem (ICE-NIG con_50.txt)

In (65), the first speaker states that some activities are all fine in his/her department and the second speaker confirms
this by saying yeah, then the first speaker employs abi2 to confirm or agree with the second speaker's acceptance of the
first speaker's own proposition. Hence, abi2 serves as a sort of response.

(66) A: okay so alright

B: okay
A: so so now we shall see tomorrow abi
B: okay thank you very much give my regard (ICE-NIG con_50.txt)

In (66), the speaker makes a statement so now we shall see tomorrow and employs abi2, to seek confirmation of this
proposition to which the second speaker responds, okay. Thus, abi2 also acts as a sort of question tag. These two functions, as
a sort of response and as a sort of question tag, qualify abi as a PM (see Naya, 2006 on right).

5. Discussion

The results of the study reveal the meaning, frequency, distribution, syntactic properties and discourse-pragmatic func-
tions of o, sha and abi in NigE. As it has already been mentioned in the introduction, PMs from local substrate languages can
appear in ESL varieties. Thus, the three PMs under study share some similarities with other types of indigenous PMs in other
ESL varieties. One of such similarities is that o, sha and abi in NigE like la, bah, meh lor in SinE and MalE, and yaar in
IndE tend to occupy the clause-final position and are syntactically optional (see Lange, 2009; Leimgruber, 2016). Also, like
other indigenous PMs in these ESL varieties, o sha and abi's discourse-pragmatic functions tend more towards the
interpersonal than the textual (see Lange, 2009; Tay et al., 2016). As it is the case for English PMs, not only in ESL but also in
ENL varieties (see Aijmer, 2013), o, sha and abi are all multifunctional, and this foregrounds their status as PMs.
Generally, the presence and frequency of o, sha and abi may contribute in some ways to the low frequency of some
English PMs in NigE such as really and anyway17 (see also Unuabonah and Gut, 2018). This point has been affirmed by
Gilquin (2016) who shows that some indigenous PMs have higher frequencies than some English PMs in ESL varieties. In
relation to fre- quency and distribution, o has the highest frequency and it is found in more text types than sha and abi. Based
on the foregoing, o may be considered a candidate for inclusion in Standard NigE as it is shared by NigE speakers of different
L1. Due to its presence in different Nigerian local languages, its inclusion in Standard NigE is more acceptable for a variety
that may soon be moving towards the stage of endonormative stabilisation (see Schneider, 2007). Although o has high
frequency in informal talks, its presence, not only in legal presentations, but also in written text types such as novels, social
letters and popular writings may indicate that it is becoming more acceptable to NigE speakers. Moreover, it is highly
multifunctional and these multiple functions tilt towards the interpersonal where speakers express their knowledge of events
and attitudes towards others.
The findings also show that the three markers are mainly found in conversations which indicate that they are features
of informal talk. The presence of these markers in Nigerian indigenous languages may reveal why the three markers are
prominent in NigE informal talks. Typically, NigE speakers tend to use their mother tongues in informal interactions, if
they share the same codes with their interlocutors and may also codeswitch between English and other indigenous
languages or NigP, as evidenced also in ICE-NIG. In cases where they do not necessarily code-switch, linguistic items
are borrowed from their indigenous languages into their utterances in English. As Matras (2000) opines, discourse
markers, which belong to the grammar of directing or managing discourse, are more prone to borrowing. This is because
borrowing helps to reduce the mental processing effort which may occur when dealing with a pragmatically dominant
language, in this case English, since it is a “language toward which a speaker directs maximum mental effort at a given
instance of interaction” (Matras, 2000: 521).

17
For example, in ICE-GB, anyway occurs 318 times while in ICE-NIG, it occurs 172 times.
In conversations, speakers are more relaxed and do not have the pressure to exert maximum mental effort. Also, the fact
that these three markers are found mostly in NigE conversations indicate that NigE speakers know the difference
between formal and informal contexts which confirms previous findings that there is stylistic variability in the use of
linguistic items in NigE (see Gut and Coronel, 2012; Unuabonah and Gut, 2018).
In relation to functions, the discourse-pragmatic functions of these markers in NigE are derived from the functions of
the markers in Nigerian indigenous languages. This can be seen, for example, in the case of o1 after greetings to
emphasise emotional support. In addition, it is interesting to note that o1 can emphasise both certainty and uncertainty
which fore- grounds its multifunctional nature. As an emphasis PM, o1 can emphasise whatever basic message that exists
in the utterance. It is also interesting to note that NigE speakers on few occasions use both anyway and sha in the same
utterance. However, in this situation, they do not share the same function as can be seen in (48). In (48), anyway is
resumptive while sha functions as a mitigation marker. This indicates that similar sub-types of sha and anyway are
mutually exclusive. Thus, for example, ad- ditive anyway and elaborative sha cannot co-occur. Ferrara (1997) also points
that this situation exists for anyway itself where the different sub-types of anyway can co-occur in the same utterance.

6. Conclusion

In this work, we have examined the meaning, frequency, grammatical features and discourse-pragmatic functions of
o, sha and abi as NigE PMs which are derived from Nigerian indigenous languages such as Yoruba, Igbo and Ishan.
While o is an emphasis marker and a mitigation marker, sha functions as an additive marker, a contrastive marker, an
attention marker and a mitigation marker. Abi occurs as a elaborative marker and as an agreement-seeking marker.
While o deals more with the interpersonal function of language, sha and abi exhibit both textual and interpersonal
functions. In all, based on the frequency, distribution and functions of o in NigE, o may be a likely candidate for
membership into Standard NigE, compared to sha and abi. However, considering that sha and abi are already in use in
NigP, there is the likelihood that an increased use of these two markers may increase their deployment in NigE.
Nonetheless, while this work recognises that these markers are found in NigE, it is possible that these markers also exist
in other West African Englishes, which share some similarities with NigE (see Gut, 2017). It will be interesting to see
their behaviour in these other varieties. Also, more work is required in order to reveal the syntactic properties and
discourse-pragmatic functions of similar PMs taken from African indigenous languages into African Englishes.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and appreciate the critical
comments of two anonymous reviewers and the journal editors.

References

Adegbija, Efurosibina, 2004. The domestication of English in Nigeria. In: Awonusi, Segun, Babalola, E.A. (Eds.), Domestication of English Language in Nigeria:
a Festschrift in Honour of Abiodun Adetugbo. University of Lagos Press, Lagos, pp. 20e44.
Adegbija, Efurosibina, Bello, Janet, 2001. The semantics of okay(ok) in Nigerian English. World Englishes 20 (9), 89e98.
Adegbite, Adewale, Udofot, Inyang, Ayoola, Kehinde, 2014. A Dictionary of Nigerian English. Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-Ife. Aijmer, Karin, 2002. English discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Aijmer, Karin, 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers: a Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Aijmer, Karin, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, 2011. Pragmatic markers. In: Zienkwoski, Jan, Ostman, Jan-Ola, Verschueren, Jef (Eds.), Discursive
Pragmatics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 223e241.
Alabi, Victoria, 2000. Semantics of occupational lexis in Nigerian English. World Englishes 19 (1), 107e112.
Anderson, Gisle, 2000. The role of pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. In: Anderson, Gisle, Fretheim, Thorstein (Eds.), Pragmatic Markers and
Propositional Attitude. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 17e38.
Anthony, Lawrence, 2015. AntConc (Version 3.4.4) [Computer Software]. Waseda University, Tokyo. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/. (Accessed 10
August 2015).
Awonusi, Victor, 2004. Cycles of linguistic history: the development of English in Nigeria. In: Dadzie, A.B.K., Awonusi, Victor (Eds.), Nigerian English: In-
fluences and Characteristics. Concept Publication, Lagos, pp. 46e66.
Banjo, Ayo, 1971. Towards a definition of standard Nigerian spoken English. In: Actes du 8th Congress de la Societe´ Linguiste de l'Afrique Occidentale,
pp.
165e175.
Biber, Douglas, Staples, Shelley, 2014. Variation in the realisation of stance adverbials. In: Raso, Tommaso, Mello, Heliana (Eds.), Spoken Corpora and
Linguistic Studies. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 271e294.
Blakemore, Diane, 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Brinton, Laurel, 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Buysse, Lieven, 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. J. Pragmat. 44 (13), 1764e1782.
Crystal, David, 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
Ferrara, Kathleen W., 1997. Forms and functions of the discourse marker anyway: implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics 35, 343e378.
Fraser, Bruce, 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6 (2), 167e190.
Fraser, Bruce, 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In: Fischer, Kerstin (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 189e204.
Fraser, Bruce, 2009a. Topic orientation markers. J. Pragmat. 41, 892e898.
Fraser, Bruce, 2009b. An account of discourse markers. Int. Rev. Pragmat. 1 (2), 293e320.
Fuchs, Robert, 2016. The frequency of the present perfect in varieties of English around the world. In: Werner, Valentin, Seoane, Elena, Sua
´rez- Go´mez, Christina (Eds.), Re-assessing the Present Perfect. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 223e258.
Fuchs, Robert, Gut, Ulrike, Soneye, Taiwo, 2013. ‘We just don't even know’: the usage of the pragmatic focus particles even and still in Nigerian English.
English World-Wide 34 (2), 123e145.
Gilquin, Gae€tanelle, 2016. Discourse markers in L2 English: from classroom to naturalistic input. In: Timofeeva, Olga, Gardner, Anne-
Christine, Honkapohja, Alpo, Chevalier, Sarah (Eds.), New Approaches to English Linguistics: Building Bridges. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp.
213e249.
Greenbaum, Sidney, 1991. ICE: the international corpus of English. Engl. Today 7, 3e7.
Gupta, Anthea F., 2006. Epistemic modalities and the discourse particles of Singapore. In: Fischer, Kerstin (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles.
Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 243e264.
Gut, Ulrike, 2014. ICE Nigeria. University of Muenster, Muenster. https://sourceforge.net/projects/ice-nigeria/. (Accessed 5 December 2015).
Gut, Ulrike, 2017. English in West Africa. In: Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani, Sharma, Devyani (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 491e507.
Gut, Ulrike, Coronel, Lillian, 2012. Relatives worldwide. In: Hundt, Marianne, Gut, Ulrike (Eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-wide. Corpus-based
Studies of New Englishes. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 215e241.
Gut, Ulrike, Fuchs, Robert, 2017. Exploring speaker fluency with phonologically annotated ICE corpora. World Englishes 36 (3), 387e403.
Jibril, Munzali, 1986. Sociolinguistic variation in Nigerian English. English World-Wide 7, 147e174.
Jowitt, David, 1991. Nigerian English Usage: an Introduction. Longman, Ikeja.
Lange, Claudia, 2009. ‘Where's the party yaar!’ Discourse particles in Indian English. In: Hoffmann, Thomas, Siebers, Lucia (Eds.), World Englishes e
Problems, Properties and Prospects. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 207e226.
Leimgruber, Jakob R.E., 2016. Bah in Singapore English. World Englishes. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12175.
Lenk, Uta, 1998. Discourse markers and global coherence in conversations. J. Pragmat. 19, 435e453.
Matras, Yaron, 2000. Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. Int. J. BiLing. 4 (4), 505e528.
Naya, Bele´n M., 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: on the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguist. Hist. 27 (1e2), 141e195.
Ogoanah, Felix, 2011. The pragmatic roles of as in in Nigerian English usage. World Englishes 30 (2), 200e210.
Oladipupo, Rotimi O., 2015. A comparative study of connected speech features in Nigerian English & Received Pronunciation. Engl. Today 124 31 (4), 21e29. Park,
Innhwa, 2010. Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 3283e3299.
Redeker, Gisela, 1991. Review article: linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29, 1139e1172.
Schneider, Edgar, 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Simons, Gary, Fennig, Charles (Eds.), 2017. Ethnologue: Langauges of the World, twentieth ed. SIL International, Dallas, Texas http://www.ethnologue.com.
(Accessed 20 January 2018).
Tan, Angela, 2010. Right in Singapore English. World Englishes 29 (2), 234e256.
Tay, Li Cha, Mei, Yuit Chan, Ngee, Thai Yap, Bee, Eng Wong, 2016. Discourse particles in Malaysian English: what do they mean? Bijdragen tot Taal-,
Land- Volkenkunde 172, 479e509.
Udofot, Inyang, 2003. Stress and rhythm in the Nigerian accent of English. English World-Wide 24, 201e220.
Unuabonah, Foluke, Gut, Ulrike, 2018. Commentary pragmatic markers in Nigerian English. English World-Wide 39 (2), 193e213. Wee,
Lionel, 2010. The particle ya in Colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes 29 (1), 45e58.
Werner, Valentin, Fuchs, Robert, 2017. The present perfect in Nigerian English. Engl. Lang. Ling. 21 (1), 129e153.
Wolf, Hans-Georg, Igboanusi, Herbert, 2003. A preliminary comparison of some lexical items in Nigerian English and Cameroon English. In: Lucko, Peter,
Peter, Lothar, Wolf, Hans-Georg (Eds.), Studies in African Varieties of English. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 69e81.

Foluke O. Unuabonah (PhD) lectures in the Department of English, Redeemer's University, Ede, Nigeria. Her areas of interest include discourse analysis and
(corpus)pragmatics. She has published papers in international journals such as Journal of Asian and African Studies, Pragmatics, Discourse & Society
and Pragmatics & Society.

Rotimi Oladipupo teaches English at Redeemer's University, Ede, Nigeria. He obtained a BA in Education (English) from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile´-
Ife`, and MA and PhD in English Language from the University of Ibadan. His research interests cover the phonetics and phonology of English, sociophonetics
and sociolinguistics. He has published articles in English Today and Sage Open.