Language and Semiotics: Safety on Nigerian Roads Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v9i3p57Keywords:
Language, Semiotics, Safety on Nigerian Roads, Road Signs and Pidgin EnglishAbstract
The thrust of this paper is to find out how literate and illiterate drivers are able to identify and act accordingly to unworded traffic sings on Nigerian roads. A stratified random sampling technique was used to select 20 private (seemed literate) drivers and 20 commercials (believed to be illiterate) drivers at Jabi lorry park, Abuja, Nigeria. 20–item–road traffic signs with no inscriptions were used as instrument for the respondents to orally state what those signs stand for when found on high ways. The instrument was given to two road safety personnel (FRSC) and two vehicle inspection officers (VIO) upon whose advice the final draft of the instrument was done and administered. The reliability index was determined via test re-test method using Pearson r statistics at 0.05 level of significance, thus producing 0.79 reliability index. The data collected were analysed using Mean and Standard deviation statistics for research questions 1 and 2, while Pearson r was used to test the 2 null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Results of the findings indicated that the Mean score of 78.68 and Standard deviation of 1.38 by the literate drivers was very high, and the Mean score of 99.89 and Standard deviation of 0.99 by the illiterate drivers was also high, but higher than that of literate drivers. The calculated r value of 6.153 is greater than the critical r value of .711 thus, rejecting the null about relationship between literacy and identification of road signs. The findings also revealed that inability to read and write was no barrier to identifying road signs by illiterate drivers as the calculated r value of 6.153 is greater than the critical r value of 0.011 thus, rejecting the hypothesis. Based on the findings, it was concluded that being educated should not be seen that one will automatically be able to identify, describe and state how and what some road signs stand for, and also one’s inability to read and write is not an impediment to being able to identify, describe and understand how and what a symbol stands for, this could be probably be due to many years of driving experience on most major roads in Nigeria by the illiterate drivers. It is therefore recommended that Diver Licensing Unit of the Nigerian Road Safety should thoroughly interview and drive-test any-would-be driver’s license applicants in that education is important though, it must not be assumed that all educated driver’s license applicants are conversant with all road traffic signs.
References
Austin, P.K. & Sallabank, J. (2011). “An Introduction”. In Austin, Peter K; Sallabank, Julian. Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge University Press
Baker, M.C. (2001). “Syntax”. In Mark Aronoff; Janie Ress-Miller. The handbook of linguistics. Blackwell. Pp. 265-269.
Bauer, L. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Bello, Y. (2017). Speech pathology: Its implication for language learning. The Journal of Communicative English 14, 38-45.
Bello, Y. (2018). The role of translation in literacy for education. Effective Lesson Planning and its Implementation. 6, Maidu: University Press.
Bett, R. (2010). “Plato and his predecessors”. In Alex Barber & Robert J. Stainton (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier. Pp. 569-570.
Bloomfield, J.H. (1914). An introduction to the study of language. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactical structures: The Hague Montongenous. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N (2000). The architecture of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comrie, B. F. (2018). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell P.3.
Culler, T.F. (2019) Structuralist poetics. London: Routledge.
Guessa, R. R. (1981). The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school. New York, Cambridge UP.
Mukarovsky, J. (1938). “Art as a semiotic fact” In Matejka and Titunik (eds.) (1976) Semiotic of art.
Oladotun T. (2015). The place of linguistics in second language teaching and learning. Perspectives on applied linguistics in language literature. Ibadan: Stirling-Horder Publishers (Nig.) Ltd
Olaoye, A.A. (2008). Aspects of applied linguistics. Abuja: Ogunleye Publishing and Printing Press.
Olaoye, A. A. (2019). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingual Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 24
Pavis, P. (1982). “Problems of a semiotic gesture”, Poetics Today. Enkvist, N.E. (1985) Texts and discourse linguistics, rhetoric and stylistic” In T.A Van Dljk, (ed.) Discourse and literature: New approaches in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Co.
Roland, B. (1968). Writing degree zero + Elements of Semiology. London: Cape.
Sekoni, R. (1989). Ifa Discourse as a semiotic model for the experience of fiction. 10th Ibadan Annual African Literature Conference, University of Ibadan.www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/language
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies
International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies applies the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic Licence (CC BY-NC 2.0)
