Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T14:58:27.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Question tags in Cameroon English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2020

Antoine Willy Ndzotom Mbakop
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although English is one of the two official languages in Cameroon, it is seldom used out of official circles where indigenous languages, French, and Pidgin English reign supreme (Jikong & Koenig, 1983). This has made the language a matter of concern for teachers, learners, and researchers. An aspect of the language which has so far been little investigated, but which is significant to English proficiency, is question tags. In fact, question tags contribute tremendously to the flow of language. They are ‘a very conspicuous phenomenon of spoken language’ (Tottie & Hoffman, 2006: 284). These short questions (tags), tagged onto a main statement (the anchor) play an important role in spoken English. While the question tag is taught from Sixième to Terminale (Grade 8 to Grade 13, i.e. the first to last years of secondary education in the Francophone subsystem of education), and from primary to secondary school in the Anglophone subsystem of education in Cameroon, researchers are still to question its teaching against the backdrop of its actual use in a country where the nativisation process of English is generally agreed upon (Schneider, 2009). Also, given that the canonical ‘type of tag question with reversed or constant polarity, (. . .) is typical of English’ (Tottie & Hoffman, 2006: 283), its teaching (textbooks focus solely on question tags with reversed or constant polarity) in a non-native setting like Cameroon is likely to foretell a conscious or unconscious desire to keep a certain standard of English. If one concurs with Schneider (2009) that Cameroon is on Phase Three of the Dynamic model (at least in the Anglophone part of the country) – that is, Nativisation where ‘structural nativization has made substantial progress’ (p. 298) – then keeping a native-like standard on school programmes (Ministry of Secondary Education, 2014), textbooks (see for illustration the English textbook Forbin et al., 2019), and official examinations would be likely to indicate some contradictions as per the apparent desire to cut the umbilical cord with the former colonial power.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 27 - 37
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algeo, J. 1988. ‘The tag question in British English: It's different i'n’it?’ English World-Wide, 9, 171–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algeo, J. 1990. ‘It's a myth, innit? Politeness and the English tag question.’ In Ricks, C. & Michaels, L., The State of the Language. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 443–450.Google Scholar
Algeo, J. 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atechi, S. 2009. ‘The Major causes of communication breakdown between native and non-native speakers of English: Some pedagogical implications.’ In Harrow, K. & Mpoche, K. (eds.), Language, Literature and Education in Multicultural Societies: Collaborative Research on Africa. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 262–282.Google Scholar
Ayafor, M. 2004. ‘Cameroon pidgin English (Kamtok): Morphology and syntax.’ In Kortmann, B. (ed.), A Handbook of Varieties of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 909–928.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. White Plains, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1984. ‘Tag questions.’ Ihla do Desterro (A Journal of English Language, Literature in English, and Cultural Studies), 5(11), 28–44.Google Scholar
Echu, G. 1999. ‘Le Bilinguisme Officiel au Cameroun: Critiques et Perspectives [Official bilingualism in Cameroon].’ In Echu, G. & Grundstrom, A. W. (eds.), Official Bilingualism and Linguistic Communication in Cameroon. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 189–201.Google Scholar
Forbin, D., Paizee, D., Muluh Tezeh, F. & Moto Zeh, C. 2019. Interactions in English, Student's Book 2nde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1967. Interation Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Interaction. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
Grimes, B. 2000. The Ethnologue: The Languages of the World (14th edn.) Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Blass, A.-K. & Mukherjee, J. 2017. ‘Canonical tag questions in Asian Englishes: Forms, functions, and frequencies in Hong Kong English, Indian English, and Singapore English.’ In Filppula, M., Klemola, J. & Sharma, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199777716.013.025Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 1983. ‘The functions of tag questions.’ English Language Research Journal, 3, 40–65.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 1984. ‘Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures.’ Te Reo, 27, 47–62.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 1986. ‘Functions of “you know” in women's and men's speech.’ Language in Society, 15, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. White Plains, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Jikong, S. & Koenig, E. L. 1983. ‘Language usage in Cameroon urban centers.’ In Koenig, E. L., Chia, E. & Povey, J. (eds.), A Sociolinguistic Profile of Urban Centres in Cameroon. Los Angeles: Cross Roads Press, pp. 55–77.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B. & Ahn, Y. A. 2008. ‘English tag questions: Corpus findings and theoretical implications.’ English Language and Linguistics, 25, 103–126.Google Scholar
Kimps, D. 2006. ‘Declarative constant polarity tag questions: A data-driven analysis of their form, meaning and attitudinal uses.’ Journal of Pragmatics, 39(2), 270–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchers, G. & Shaw, P. 2011. World Englishes (2nd edn.) London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Ministry of Secondary Education. 2014. Programme of Study: English to Francophones. General Secondary Education.Google Scholar
Nama, M., Forbin, D., Paizee, D. & Muluh Tezeh, F. 2019. Interactions in English, Student's Book 6ème. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nkemleke, D. 2009. ‘Frequency and use of modals in Cameroon English and application to language education.’ In Harrow, K. & Mpoche, K. (eds.), Language, Literature and Education in Multicultural Societies: A Collaborative Research on Africa. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 242–261.Google Scholar
Polzenhagen, F. & Wolf, H.-G. 2007. ‘Culture-specific conceptualisations of corruption in African English: Linguistic analyses and pragmatic applications.’ In Sharifian, F. & Palmer, G. B. (eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publication Company, pp. 125–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmied, J. 1991. English in Africa: An Introduction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. 2009. ‘Towards endonormativity? African English and the dynamic model of the evolution of postcolonial Englishes.’ In Harrow, K. & Mpoche, K. (eds.), Language, Literature and Education in Multicultural Societies: Collaborative Research on Africa. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 283–305.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simo Bobda, A. 2002. Watch your English. Collection of Remedial Lessons on English Usage. Yaoundé: B and K Language Institute.Google Scholar
Swan, M. 1996. Practical English Usage, International Student's Edition. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tagne Safotso, G. 2012. ‘Aspects of Cameroon Francophone English (CamFE) phonology.’ Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2471–2477.Google Scholar
Takahashi, M. 2014. ‘Invariant tags in Asian Englishes: A corpus-based approach.’ Proceedings from the 20th Annual Conference of The Association for Natural Language Processing.Google Scholar
Todd, L. 1982a. Varieties of English around the world T1: Cameroon. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Todd, L. 1982b. ‘The English language in West Africa.’ In Bailey, R. & Görlach, M. (eds.), English as a World Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 281–305.Google Scholar
Torgerson, E. N., Gabrielatos, C., Hoffman, S. & Fox, S. 2011. ‘A corpus-based study of pragmatic markers in London English.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 93–118.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. & Hoffman, S. 2006. ‘Tag questions in British and American English: The first century.’ Journal of English Linguistics, 34(4), 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G. & Hoffman, S. 2009. ‘Tag questions in English: The first century.’ Journal of English Linguistics, 37(2), 130–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, M. L.-Y. 2007. ‘Tag questions in Hong Kong English: A corpus-based study.’ Asian Englishes, 10(1), 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar