This paper focuses on the use of preverbal so in present-day English. While its use as an intensifier (meaning ‘so much’ or ‘very much’) has been attested already in Early Modern English (OED online, s.v. so, adv. and conj., sense 15), it has only recently acquired emphatic meaning (‘truly’ or ‘definitely’, see OED online, s.v. so, adv. and conj., 2005 Draft Additions). Compare:

1. (1) I do so love weddings. They're such joy. (SOAP YR 2005)

2. (2) I'm so ditching school to babysit. (SOAP AMC 2007)

English is an official language in Uganda and is said to be in its nativization phase when placed within Schneider's (2007) model of the trajectorial development of Englishes (Isingoma & Meierkord, 2019). In the present study, we delineate the general features of the Ugandan accent of English (i.e. those that cut across regional or ethnic boundaries) as well as features that evince variability among Ugandans due to regional or ethnic background. The first description of the phonological features of the variety of English spoken in Uganda is included in Fisher's (2000) seminal paper on this L2 (second language) variety of English. Another description of these features is found in Nassenstein (2016). Both Fisher (2000) and Nassenstein (2016) provide a short section, outlining the features which are similar to the general features of L2 Englishes, notably the restructuring of the phonemic system, e.g. /a/ replacing /ɜ:, ɑ:, ʌ, ə/ and the free variation of [l] and [r], although the latter occurs regionally (see similar findings on L2 varieties of English in Bailey & Görlach [eds.] 1984; Platt, Weber & Ho, 1984; Schmied, 1991; Simo-Bobda, 2000; Atechi, 2004; Schneider et al. [eds.], 2004; Tsilimos, 2018; among others). Additionally, Simo-Bobda (2001) and Schmied (2004) describe more or less the same features but in a more detailed way under the label ‘East African English’ (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania). Schmied (2004) posits three reasons that underlie the features in question: substrate influence, simplification and spelling pronunciation. To these studies, we add a more focused study on one particular aspect of the Ugandan accent(s) of English, namely by Meierkord (2016), who looks at diphthongs and how they are realized by speakers of different L1s. Her findings demonstrate variability but also convergence in the idiomorphic pronunciation of diphthongs by Ugandans.

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.

Across the world, in many places in which English is not widely spoken, English text often appears on posters, storefronts, billboards, street signs, warning signs, menus, and many other forms of publicly visible written texts. English is often featured alongside one or more additional languages. These signs are typically seen as unremarkable by passersby looking to buy goods, for information regarding prohibited activity, or even just for a comfortable coffee shop. An increasingly robust scholarly literature has examined these signs since the publication of Landry and Bourhis' (1997) foundational study which popularized the term linguistic landscape. Linguistic landscape scholarship now includes large-scale quantitative examinations of publicly visible signs in cities such as Tokyo (Backhaus, 2007), smaller-scale examinations of the written language within individual workplaces in a single building (Hanauer, 2010), studies on mobile linguistic landscapes such as shopping bags (Alomoush, 2019) and many other studies conducted in widely varying locations with widely varying foci (McKiernan, 2019; Yuan, 2019).

A student hovers over red-underlined text, clicks a button, and watches her errant writing replaced. The red line disappears. She continues typing, pausing to address the flagged words and phrases. When she stops typing, what appears before her is spotless – its errors coded out of existence by a modern grammar checker. Her teacher may never become aware of the artificial intelligence that has augmented her writing production. She submits her paper.