METADATA


Title: The Use of Conjunctions Among L1 Luganda Speakers of English.

 

Vol. 10(1), 2022, pp. 7-24.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46687/DLFB1456

 

Author: Dorica Deborah Mirembe

About the author: Dorica Deborah Mirembe is a graduate trainee at the Department of Languages and Literature (English Language and Linguistics Section) at Gulu University (Uganda). She is a trained teacher of English and Literature in English. Her research interests are in the fields of sociolinguistics, syntax and corpus linguistics.

e-mail:                

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4548-1624

              

Author: Bebwa Isingoma

About the author: Bebwa Isingoma earned his PhD in English Linguistics in 2013 at the University of Agder (Norway) after completing his MPhil at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He is an EU Marie S. Curie fellow (Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies, Germany, 2018/19) and a fellow of the African Humanities Program (Rhodes University, South Africa, 2015). His research interests include (variational) sociolinguistics, English syntax, cognitive pragmatics and Bantu linguistics. He is currently a Senior Lecturer in English Language & Linguistics and Dean of the Faculty of Education & Humanities at Gulu University (Uganda).                 

e-mail: b.isingoma@gu.ac.ug, isibebwa@yahoo.co.uk                                   

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1203-5951

 

Citation (APA style): Mirembe, D. D., & Isingoma, B.  (2022). The Use of Conjunctions Among L1 Luganda Speakers of English. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 10(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.46687/DLFB1456.

 

Link: http://silc.fhn-shu.com/issues/2022-1/SILC_2022_Vol_10_Issue_1_007-024_18.pdf

 

 

Abstract: The study looks at the use of conjunctions among L1 Luganda speakers of English as a second language (L2) in Uganda. Using a corpus compiled from oral and written discourse, the study found that the conjunction mostly used among L1 Luganda speakers of English was “and”, followed by “but”, both of which were marginally used as sentence openers, with the written data showing no single incidence of using “and” in this respect.  It was also established that a number of English conjunctions were either totally absent or only used sporadically in both types of discourse. For example, correlatives such as “scarcely…when, no sooner…than” were completely absent from our corpus. Substrate influence from Luganda has been seen to have a role, not least in the co-extensive use of “although/though” with “but” in subordination, although analogy appears to work synergistically with substrate influence here (see Andersen, 1983). Innovations involving the rejection of constructions with the conjunction “if” were observed with regard to what appear to be mixed tenses (e.g. If you did not study chemistry at lower levels, you will not understand this concept), although in L1 English such constructions are legitimate since they do not encode the semantic relation of condition (Swan, 2005). Given that L1 Luganda speakers of English are Ugandans, this aspect of the findings in the study lends itself to observations made in earlier studies (e.g. Ssempuuma, Isingoma & Meierkord, 2016; Isingoma, 2021) on the structural nativization of English in Uganda as well as trends towards endonormativity in the sense of Schneider (2007). 

Key words: substrate influence, analogy, conjunctions, Luganda, English

 

References:

  1. Abraham, S. U., & Sadiya, Y. (2016). The use of conjunctions in some African languages. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 21(10), 1791-1795.
  2. Andersen, R. W. (1983). Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  3. Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net. Accessed 10th September 2021
  4. Blakemore. D. (2004). Discourse Markers. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 221-240). Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch10
  5. Blakemore, D., & Carston, R., (2003). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115, 569-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.016
  6. Bowie, J. & Aarts, B. (2016). Clause fragments in English dialogue. In M. J. López-Couso, B. Méndez-Naya, P. Núñez-Pertejo& I. Palacios (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics on the Move: Exploring and Understanding English through Corpora (pp. 256-288). Leiden, Boston: Brill Rodopi.
  7. Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.). English Grammar Today. Retrieved from httpss://dictionary.cambridge.org. Accessed 18th August 2021.
  8. Carlsen, C. (2010). Discourse connectives across CEFR-levels: A corpus based study. EUROSLA Monograph Series, 1, 191-210.
  9. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.
  10. Darweesh, A., D., & Kadhim, S., A., H. (2016). Iraqi EFL learners’ problems in using conjunctions as cohesive devices. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(11), 169-180.
  11. Fahkiri, A. (1994). Text organization and transfer: The case of Arab ESL learners. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 32(1), 78-86.
  12. Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (1996). The International Corpus of English (ICE) project. World Englishes, 15, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00088.x
  13. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  14. Hasselgård, H., Lysvåg, P., & Johansson, S. (2012): English Grammar: Theory and Use. Oslo:   Universitetsforlaget.
  15. Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111-132.
  16. Hussein, R., & Mudhi, S. (2014). A corpus-based study of conjunctive adjuncts in the writings of          native and non-native speakers of English. Journal of English Linguistics Research, 3(2), 18- 32. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v3n2p18
  17. Isingoma, B. (2014). Lexical and grammatical features of Ugandan English. English Today, 30(2), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000133 
  18. Isingoma, B. (2016). The use of ditransitive constructions in Ugandan English. In C. Meierkord, B. Isingoma & S. Namyalo (Eds.), Ugandan English: Its Sociolinguistics, Structure and Uses in a Globalising Post-protectorate (pp. 201-226). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g59.09isi 
  19. Isingoma, B. (2021). Politeness strategies in Ugandan English: Making requests and responding to thanks. Brno Studies in English, 47(1), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2021-1-2
  20. Isingoma, B., & Meierkord, C. (2016). Ugandan English - challenges to, and input for, current theories. In C. Meierkord, B. Isingoma, & S. Namyalo (Eds.), Ugandan English: Its Sociolinguistics, Structure and Uses in a Globalising Post-protectorate (pp. 1-15). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g59.01isi 
  21. Isingoma, B., & Meierkord C. (2019). Capturing the lexicon of Ugandan English: ICE - Uganda, its limitations, and effective complements. In A. U. Esimaje, U. Gut & B. E. Anita (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes (p. 293-328). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.88.13isi
  22. Jowitt, D. (1991). Nigerian Usage – An Introduction. Lagos: Longman, Nigeria.
  23. Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.). English in the World. Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: CUP.
  24. Kawalya, D., de Schryver, GM, & Bostoen, K. (2018). From conditionality to modality in Luganda (Bantu, JE 15): A synchronic and diachronic corpus analysis of the verbal prefix -andi-. Journal of Pragmatics 127, 84-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.01.011
  25. Lancaster University. Comparing Frequencies for Corpora of Different Sizes.https://www.Lancaster.ac.uk/fss/courses/ling/corpus/blue/l05_3.htm. Accessed 10th October 2021.
  26. McClure, E., & Steffensen M., S. (1980). A study of the use of conjunctions across grades and ethnic groups. Research in the Teaching of English 19(3), 1-48.
  27. McMillan, K., & Weyers, J. (2010). How to Write Dissertations & Project Reports. Essex: Pretince Hall.
  28. Meierkord, C., & Isingoma, B. (in print). Between first language    influence, exonormative orientation and migration – future time expressions in post-protectorate Ugandan English. English World-Wide.
  29. Merilaine, E. (2015). The frequency and variability of conjunctive adjuncts in the Estonian-English interlanguage corpus (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Tartu, Estonia.
  30. Mesthrie, R., & Bhatt R. M. (2008). World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791321 
  31. Mohamed-Sayidina, A. (2010). Transfer of L1 cohesive devices and transition words onto L2 academic texts: The case of Arab students. Relc Journal, 41(3), 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210380569 
  32. Mohammed, S. A. (2015). Conjunctions as Cohesive Devices in the writings of English as Second Language Learners. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.182 
  33. Nakayiza, J. (2016). The sociolinguistic situation of English in Uganda: A case of language attitudes and beliefs. In C. Meierkord, B. Isingoma & S. Namyalo (Eds), Ugandan English: Its Sociolinguistics, Structure and Uses in a Globalizing Post-protectorate. (pp.75-94). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g59.04nak 
  34. Namyalo, S., Isingoma, B., & Meierkord, C. (2016). Towards assessing the space of English in Uganda's linguistic ecology. In C. Meierkord, B. Isingoma & S. Namyalo (Eds.), Ugandan English: Its Sociolinguistics, Structure and Uses in a Globalizing Post-protectorate. (pp.19-50). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g59.02nam
  35. Oxford Advanced Learner’s DictionaryNinth Edition: Oxford, OUP.
  36. Peck, J., & Coyle, M. (2005). The Student’s Guide to Writing. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  37. Postal, M. P. (2010). Edge-Based Clausal Syntax: A Study of (Mostly) English Object Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014816.001.0001
  38. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  39. Schneider, W. E. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: CUP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618901
  40. Ssempuuma, J., Isingoma, B, & Meierkord, C. (2016). The use of the progressive in Ugandan English. In C. Meierkord, B. Isingoma & S. Namyalo (Eds.), Ugandan English: Its Sociolinguistics, Structure and Uses in a Globalizing Post-protectorate (pp.174-199). Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g59.08sse
  41. Sternefeld, L., & Sseguya, N. F. (2017). A Luganda Grammar. https://learnluganda.files.
    wordpress.com/2019/07/luganda_grammar_2017.pdf. Accessed 15th July 2021.
  42. Swan, M. (2005). Practical English Usage. Oxford: OUP.
  43. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2016). National population and housing census 2014.http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/NPHC/2014%20National%20Census%20Main%20Report.pdf. Accessed 17th July 2021.
  44. Weskott, T., & Fanselow, G. (2009). Scaling Issues in the Measurement of Linguistic Acceptability. In S. Featherston & S. Winkler (Eds.), The Fruits of Empirical Linguistics, Volume 1 (pp. 657-674). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216141.229
  45. Widdowson, H. W. (2006). Foreword. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: OUP.
  46. Zinsser, W. (2001). On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. New York: Quill-Harper Collins Publishers.