2. Fisher's (Reference Fisher2000) account of UgE: a brief review

Fisher (Reference Fisher2000) lists a number of linguistic features of UgE in the domains of lexis, grammar and phonology. In the area of lexis, he mentions a number of peculiarities that occur in UgE, e.g. non-standard use of some words, e.g. avail means ‘provide (with)’, as in ‘I'll avail you the required information’; ‘Ugandanisms’, e.g. oversize is used instead of outsize; words transferred from local languages, e.g. to bounce, as in ‘I came to your office but I bounced’ for ‘I came to your office, but I didn't find you there’. In the area of grammar, Fisher (Reference Fisher2000) mentions, among others, direct object dropping, where it is obligatory to use an overt linguistic form in StE, e.g. ‘Those who cannot afford should find another school’; a generalized use of the question tag isn't it?, etc.

Fisher's (Reference Fisher2000) findings should be augmented and some of them need a re-analysis, since they depart from the truth found on the ground. For example, he claims (p. 59) that to bounce, as in ‘I came to your office but I bounced’, is a word translated directly from a Ugandan language, which he does not name. Given that Luganda (a Bantu language spoken in the capital of Uganda) is the main substrate language (Fisher, Reference Fisher2000: 59), one can conjecture that the Ugandan language Fisher (Reference Fisher2000: 59) refers to could indeed be Luganda. However, according to my Luganda consultants, there is no native Luganda word from which UgE derives to bounce. Similarly, a survey I conducted in other Ugandan languages yielded the same results; that is, the languages do not have a word that gave rise to the peculiar UgE use of the verb to bounce. Contrary to Fisher's (Reference Fisher2000: 59) claim, what takes place here is that the meaning of StE to bounce has been broadened in UgE, stemming from its standard metaphorical use, i.e. when a cheque is sent back by a bank, because there is no money in one's account. So, when one does not find a person they wanted to see, they go back or ‘they are sent back by the absence of that person’. In other words, it is an innovative metaphorical use of the StE verb to bounce. In contradistinction to Fisher's (Reference Fisher2000: 59) view, it is Ugandan languages that have been influenced by the UgE usage of the verb to bounce. In languages such as Luganda and Rutooro, etc., there is a verb kubausinga ‘to bounce’ borrowed from UgE to bounce, which is on a par with borrowings such as kudivelopinga, etc. from the StE verb to develop. Likewise, Fisher's (Reference Fisher2000) contention that oversize (p. 59) is a ‘Ugandanism’, which he defines as ‘a word found in Uganda or East Africa’, is misleading, because oversize is also found in StE, especially American English (as an alternative to oversized), as in ‘My daughter loves to wear oversize clothes’ (CALD, Reference Fisher2005). Fisher (Reference Fisher2000) seems to regard American English expressions used in Uganda as a feature of UgE (p. 60), but the fact that he claims that oversize is a ‘Ugandanism’, in the sense that it only occurs in Uganda or ‘East Africa’, makes his analysis problematic.

3. Features of Ugandan English

The features I present here are stable, ubiquitous, and arguably conventionalized properties of UgE. In fact, there are instances where UgE expressions are so categorical that StE expressions are regarded as ‘mistakes’ in Uganda (cf. section 4). Many other features of UgE are simply regarded as correct alternatives to StE expressions. For example, the use of UgE to avail reported by Fisher (Reference Fisher2000: 59) is used interchangeably with StE to provide (with)/make available.

Most examples are from online local newspapers, namely New Vision (NV) and Daily Monitor (DM), as well as The Observer and The Campus Journal. Further examples were gleaned from other written materials (e.g. novels), as well as field observations arising from day-to-day oral discourse. The study draws not only on the author's intuition (as a speaker of UgE), but also on the intuition of other speakers of UgE who were contacted in order to test the views of the author. Native speakers and repositories such as the OED (2009) and BNC were consulted in order to ascertain that the features described here as UgE do not occur in present-day StE, even though some of them may occur very marginally in native English, quintessentially as archaisms (cf. Fisher, Reference Fisher2000: 59), obsolescent or obsolete expressions, or simply as non-standard forms (see section 4).

4. Accounting for the development of UgE and its ubiquitous use

The development of UgE is a result of important linguistic phenomena such as analogy and influence from local languages (see also Schmied, Reference Schmied, Kortmann, Burridge, Mesthrie, Schneider and Upton2004: 931 for similar observations in relation to what he calls East African English). The adoption of a given feature in UgE is sometimes attributable to the fact that there exists a similar feature in StE, such that either an interpretive resemblance or a formal resemblance is established between the two features, or both. For example, the UgE verb to dirten ‘dirty/make dirty’ seems to have been derived on the basis of a convergence of formal and interpretive resemblances with a number of other StE causative verbs like to strengthen, involving the notion of causing something to change from one state to a different state. To cowardise, which in UgE means ‘behave like a coward’, used to exist in StE (spelt cowardize), but not as an intransitive verb (WOD). It used to be a transitive verb meaning ‘render cowardly’, and it is seldom used nowadays (WOD). To ashame is also a rarely used verb in StE, where to shame is used instead (WOD). Since Ugandans entered into contact with English only relatively recently (approximately 12 decades ago), it may not be plausible to link the use of UgE to cowardise and to ashame with what seems to be obsolescent (or perhaps obsolete) StE words. There is even some evidence (cf. Maddox, Reference Maddox1902: 150) showing that the British, who introduced English to Uganda, used to shame. Note that my BNC search returned no hits involving the verbs ashame and cowardise, which suggests that they are either obsolescent or just obsolete. Thus, it seems more likely that the use of these words in UgE is rather a case of analogy. Other cases of analogy include using non-count nouns as count nouns (e.g. offals), singularization of words such as trousers (i.e. UgE trouser), etc. Influence from Ugandan languages can be observed in calques such as to detooth ‘fleece/gold-dig’. The fact that there is a lack of a more expedient way in StE to express certain concepts that occur in Ugandan languages gives rise to the emergence of words such as mbu (a discourse marker), etc., or even calques. Calques such as to eat money ‘embezzle’ (cf. Fisher, Reference Fisher2000: 59) and to detooth ‘fleece/gold-dig’ can be said to provide richer semantic and pragmatic content in the form of more colorful expressions than what is available in StE. Thus, some Ugandan speakers of English know, for example, that the idiom eat money and the verb detooth ‘fleece/gold-dig’ do not exist in StE. But they feel that such expressions are more appropriate in the Ugandan context than StE equivalents like to embezzle, to fleece/gold-dig, because their use yields additional cognitive effects compared to the StE expressions (cf. Isingoma, Reference Isingoma2013: 26). The calques are idioms from Luganda (kulya sente ‘eat money’, kukuula ammanyo ‘remove teeth’ = ‘detooth’) and many other Ugandan languagesFootnote ⁴. Idioms reward hearers with extra cognitive effects (Vega-Moreno, Reference Vega-Moreno2003: 319).

There seems to be a lack of awareness of the non-existence of some UgE expressions in StE. For example, to extend ‘move up’ (cf. Fisher, Reference Fisher2000: 59), to dirten ‘dirty/make dirty’ and others are used because many users of English in Uganda seem to be unaware of their non-existence in StE. Also, a person may use, for example, UgE to break off (for holidays), the summons are, etc. instead of StE break up, the summons is, because they feel that if they used the StE versions, they would be regarded as speaking or writing ‘broken English’ (cf. Isingoma, Reference Isingoma2013: 24). This shows how conventionalized and entrenched UgE is. Furthermore, sometimes, Ugandans who are conversant with given StE expressions and their usage may nevertheless find themselves using UgE expressions, because they are simply immersed in this variety of English and it might strike the addressee as odd, or maybe even arrogant or snobbish, for a Ugandan to adopt English usage that is not commonly heard in the country.

We should note that there is at least one UgE expression which is viewed as a high style lexical item, namely the verb to avail listed by Fisher (Reference Fisher2000: 59), as used in (33):

1. (33) ‘These markets are very important for the country. They create jobs, provide incomes, create wealth, avail products and develop areas’ (NV, 18 February 2007).

This expression belongs to intellectual vocabulary. It is hardly heard in ordinary parlance, for example, among primary or secondary school students. It is used by the so-called acrolects. In fact, the example I have provided in (33) was extracted from a scholarly article authored by a professor in the Ugandan media. Thus, the use of UgE transcends education level, i.e. UgE is not inferior and does not cause stigmatization. The mere fact that UgE to avail is mainly used by those who have a high command of English (because of their high level of education) is sufficient to corroborate this standpoint. Apart from the above verb, highly educated Ugandans use virtually all the other UgE expressions; for instance, the example of UgE to cowardise (see section 3.1.1), repeated here as (34), is a direct quotation from another professor:

1. (34) ‘“I'm not going to cowardise in implementing what council has approved…,”’ Prof. Baryamureeba said (DM, 20 May 2011; see also Isingoma, Reference Isingoma2013: 21).

Of course, these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. The data provided in this study clearly show that writers (e.g. novelists), academics, teachers, journalists, lawyers, and politicians, etc. all use UgE. None of these users of UgE is ready to face stigmatization. Note that sometimes playwrights may be positively interested in capturing the UgE tone in their dialogues, and even novelists and other writers can exploit features of UgE, especially in direct speech sequences. For example, let us consider (35), provided in section 3.2.1 in relation to the extended meaning of the word wholesome in UgE:

1. (35) ‘Otherwise, apart from government's failure to end the LRA mayhem, how does one explain the “wholesome” hatred of Museveni, even by the young successful middle class from the political north!’ (NV, 24 March 2006).

As it can be seen in (35), the author places the word wholesome in inverted commas. The author could be aware of the meaning of wholesome in StE, but he is also aware that the audience appreciates the UgE usage and no other term would be more appropriate here, whence the inverted commas. In addition, the author could just be reporting what other people say about Museveni (the current president of Uganda) being completely unpopular in the region. He might be aware of the StE usage of the word, or he might be oblivious to it as well. However, it is also possible that the author is only aware of the meaning of the word as it is used in UgE but reserved himself not to sound hyperbolic, since not everybody in the ‘political north’ hates Museveni.

5. Concluding remarks

I have listed a number of instantiations of the lexical and grammatical features of UgE that are basically not included in Fisher (Reference Fisher2000). The use of UgE is so ubiquitous that it generally permeates the English of virtually every educated Ugandan. Since UgE is, above all, English, it is natural for it to share some properties with other Englishes. Cases of calquing from indigenous languages, treating some non–count nouns as count nouns, etc. have been reported in other non-native Englishes (see, for example, Huber & Dako, Reference Huber, Dako, Kortmann, Burridge, Mesthrie, Schneider and Upton2004). But as we have seen, the actual calques, for example, may be different in given varieties. For instance, I have not yet come across any other variety of English where the UgE calque to detooth ‘fleece, gold-dig’ is used. Crucially, as a variety of English in East Africa, it is no surprise that UgE shares some of its properties more closely with other East African varieties of English (see also Arua, Reference Arua1998: 139 in relation to Swazi English and Black South African English). For example, Schmied (Reference Schmied, Kortmann, Burridge, Mesthrie, Schneider and Upton2004: 931, Reference Schmied, Kachru, Kachru and Nelson2006: 198) points out that UgE to pick, as opposed to StE to pick up, is used in the whole of East Africa. However, this does not mean that there are no differences between, for example, Kenyan English and UgE insofar as to treat them as one variety. For example, cases of to dirten ‘dirty/make dirty’, to detooth, etc. have not been reported in Kenyan English (or Tanzanian English). But it is instructive to note that some of the peculiarly UgE features may have a cognitive basis that would make them rather likely candidates that may undergo conventionalization, often through the cognitive mechanism of analogy, in other non-native Englishes as well.