Linguistic Revitalisation: Tonga in Zimbabwe

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=Research%20Output (Accessed: Date).

LINGUISTIC REVITALISATION: TONGA IN ZIMBABWE

J CHIKASHA

LINGUISTIC REVITALISATION: TONGA IN ZIMBABWE

JUBILEE CHIKASHA

DLitt et Phil THESIS

submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree

DOCTOR LITTERARUM ET PHILOSOPHIAE

APPLIED LINGUISTICS

in the

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

at the

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

SUPERVISOR: PROF A-M BEUKES

Submission date: 20 October 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to several people who have contributed in one way or the other to the success of this research.

Firstly, I want to thank my supervisor Professor A-M Beukes who was there for me, with me throughout the journey, guiding me and providing the light. Secondly, I would like to thank Talent Mudenda for assisting me during the process of data gathering. I would not have done it without you, thank you. The same goes to my respondents, thank you for your commitment and willingness to respond to my questionnaires and interviews. A big thank you to the University of Johannesburg Postgraduate

Statistician Juliana van Staden for going through all those piles and piles of questionnaires for the statistical analysis. I also would like to extend my gratitude to friends, colleagues and a number of other individuals not mentioned by name. Your support and assistance during the course of this journey is greatly appreciated.

And the three men in my inner circle; Sam, Tariro and Tawana, a special thank you for the encouragement, for bearing with me during my pressure point times, for never complaining, even when I was not there for you as a wife and mother! May the Lord

Almighty richly bless you all!

iii

DEDICATION To the three men in my inner circle Sam, Tariro and Tawana… To God Be the Glory!

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY Multilingualism is a reality in most African countries. It is also a reality that most African countries, if not all have once been under colonial dominance with colonial languages adding on to the language ecologies of the said countries. With the dawn of independence in the 20th century, most African countries inherited colonial language policies, which were characterised by the hegemony of the colonial languages and followed the top-down language planning approach. Zimbabwe, the country under study, boasts of 16 languages in its linguistic ecology but inherited English as the High (H) language in relation to indigenous Zimbabwean languages.

In terms of local languages, the approach to language planning has been fashioned along monolingualism as a way of perpetuating the ideology of national unity, an ideology, which is not shared by the majority of ethnic groups in Zimbabwe. This ideology divided Zimbabwe into two linguistic blocks dominated by Shona and Ndebele languages. This led to the further denigration of other languages, particularly the so-called minority languages whose existence has been ignored for a long time. Under this premise, there is need for a change in the language planning approach from top-down to bottom-up if minority languages are to survive into the future. This approach has been used by the Tonga speakers and has successfully resulted in the revitalisation of their language. The study therefore examines the motivations for the revitalisation of Tonga, the factors that have led to the Tonga success story, as well as the extent of Tonga development. Data for the research was gathered through interviews, questionnaires and material culture. The research site was Binga District in North-western Zimbabwe. Social actors who were, and are still, involved in the revitalisation of Tonga were used as informants. These included Binga District chiefs, parents, teachers, learners, non-governmental organisations, churches and educational institutions.

A multi-dimensional approach was adopted in the analysis and evaluation of the data gathered for the research. This includes Fishman’s (1991) Reversing Language Shift, UNESCO’S (2003) Nine Factors and Milligan’s (2010) Systems Model of Language Planning,

The revitalisation of Tonga was driven by various motivational factors, which range from the linguistic, economic to the political. The Tonga people believed that the

v death of Tonga language would be synonymous with the death of Tonga as a people. Revitalising their language was therefore a way of sustaining their identity. They also wanted to revitalise their language as a way of creating space for themselves within the boundaries of Zimbabwean citizenry. The currency that the Tonga people believed to be associated with their language also motivated them to develop their language.

The research has shown that the Tonga success story is attributed to a number of factors. At the heart of the success story is the Tonga people’s unwavering love, pride, loyalty and commitment to the revitalisation of their language. This positive attitude was a great source of strength in times of challenges, failures and discouragements. The Tonga people augmented their positive attitude with collaborations with other social actors like non-governmental organisations (Silveira House, Save The Children Fund-UK, Catholic Commission for Justice for Peace- Binga), educational institutions (University of Zimbabwe: African Languages Department, African Languages Research Institute), publishing houses as well as people in their individual capacities. The collaborations brought in the expertise and resources that the Tonga people lacked.

The Tonga success story is a story worth telling particularly for the reason that it is a result of bottom-up initiatives. It is hoped that the implementation of the various dynamics of the bottom-up approach used by Tonga speakers may also help resuscitate other minority languages from their linguistic deathbeds.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ALLEX PROJECT - African Languages Lexical Project

ALRI – African Languages Research Institute

BJPP – Binga Justice for Peace Project

BSAC – British South African Company

CCJP – Catholic Commission for Justice & Peace

CDU – Curriculum Development Unit

CLP – Critical Language Policy

DEO – District Education Officer

EGIDS – Extended Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

FM – Frequency Modulation

GIDS - Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale

H – High

HOD – Head of Department

L- Low

LO LT – Language of learning and Teaching

LP – Language Planning

LSA – Linguistics Society of America

OAU – Organisation of African Union

vii

PM – Planning Model

RLS – Reversing Language Shift

SCF-UK – Save the Children Fund- United Kingdom

SDC – School Development Committee

TOLACO – Tonga Language Committee

UDF – United Democratic Front Party

UDI - Unilateral Declaration of Independence

UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNZA – University of Zambia

USAID – United States Agency for International Development

UZ – University of Zimbabwe

VETOKA – Venda, Tonga & Kalanga Language Committee

X/Xish – Endangered Language

Xmen – Speakers of Endangered Language

XSL – Learning of an Endangered Language as a Second Language

Y/Yish – Dominant Language

Ymen – Speakers of a Dominant Language

ZANU PF – Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Party

ZAPU – Zimbabwe African People’s Union

viii

ZILPA – Zimbabwe Indigenous Languages Promotion Association

ZIMSEC – Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council

ZPH – Zimbabwe Publishing House

Contents AFFIDAVIT ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii DEDICATION ...... iv SUMMARY OF THE STUDY ...... v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... vii CHAPTER ONE ...... 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT/RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 2 1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...... 5 1.4 STRUCTURE OF STUDY ...... 5 CHAPTER TWO ...... 8 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 8 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8 2.2 LANGUAGE PLANNING ...... 8 2.3 IDEOLOGICAL LINGUISTIC ORIENTATIONS ...... 9 2.3.1 Language as a resource...... 10 2.3.2 Language as a problem ...... 15 2.3.3 Language as a right ...... 16 2.4 LANGUAGE POLICY ...... 16 2.5 TYPES OF LANGUAGE PLANNING ...... 18 2.5.1 Status planning ...... 18 2.5.2 Corpus planning ...... 18 2.5.3 Acquisition planning ...... 18 2.6 MODELS OF LANGUAGE PLANNING ...... 18 2.6.1 The Systems Model of Language Planning (LP) ...... 18 2.6.2 The Planning Model (PM) ...... 24 2.7 LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT ...... 26 2.7.1 Agencies of Language Management ...... 28 2.7.2 Simple language management ...... 28 2.7.3 Organised language management ...... 29 2.7.4 The home and family domain ...... 29 2.7.5 Education domain ...... 30

2.7.6 Media ...... 31 2.7.7 Trade ...... 31 2.7.8 Language management at the supranational level ...... 32 2.8 LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY IN THE AFRICAN CONTEXT BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER INDEPENDENCE ...... 33 2.8.1 The Malawi language situation ...... 36 2.8.2 The Mozambique language situation ...... 39 2.9 CURRENT TRENDS IN LANGUAGE PLANNING ...... 42 2.10 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 48 2.10.1 Fishman’s (1991) Reversing Language Shift (RLS) ...... 50 2.10.2 UNESCO’s (2003) “Nine Factors” ...... 58 2.10.3 Lewis & Simons 2010 Extended Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) ...... 68 2.11 CONCLUSION ...... 70 CHAPTER THREE ...... 71 LINGUISTIC HISTORY OF ZIMBABWE ...... 71 3.1 LINGUISTIC SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE ...... 71 3.2 THE ORIGINS OF THE LANGUAGE QUESTION IN ZIMBABWE ...... 75 3.2.1 Early missionary work and the genesis of literary work in Zimbabwe: the blessings and the curses ...... 75 3.2.2 Implications of early missionary work on indigenous languages ...... 78 3.2.3 CM Doke: The unification of the Shona dialects and the perpetuation of the marginalization of indigenous languages in Zimbabwe ...... 79 3.3 THE EDUCATION SECTOR AND ITS EFFECTS ON INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE SPEAKERS IN COLONIAL AND POST INDEPENDENT ZIMBABWE ...... 89 3.4 CONCLUSION ...... 100 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 101 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 101 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 101 4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 101 4.3 APPROACHES TO DATA COLLECTION ...... 102 4.3.1 Why qualitative research approach? ...... 102 4.4 RESEARCH SITE ...... 103 4.5 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...... 104 4.6 POPULATION ...... 105

4.7 SAMPLING ...... 105 4.8 DATA COLLECTION ...... 108 4.8.1 Questionnaire ...... 109 4.8.2 Interview ...... 110 4.8.3 Material culture - Documents ...... 111 4.9 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 112 4.10 TRUSTWORTHINESS AND RIGOUR ...... 113 4.11 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 114 4.12 CONCLUSION ...... 115 CHAPTER FIVE ...... 116 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ...... 116 5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 116 5.2 INFORMANTS’ SOCIO-LINGUISTIC PROFILE ...... 116 5.2.1 Category 1: chiefs and parents ...... 116 5.2.2 Category 2: teachers...... 118 5.2.3 Category 3: Learners ...... 120 5.3 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ...... 122 5.3.1 What is the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language? ...... 122 5.3.2 What factors have contributed to this linguistic development? ...... 145 5.3.3 What is the extent of the development of Tonga?...... 175 5.4 CONCLUSION ...... 181 CHAPTER SIX ...... 183 TONGA: SUSTAINING AND MAINTAINING THE GAINS OF REVITALISATION ...... 183 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 183 6.2 ORGANISED LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT ...... 183 6.2.1 Language management in the home and family domain ...... 183 6.2.2 Language management in the education domain ...... 186 6.2.3 Language management in the media domain ...... 190 6.2.4 Language Management in the trade domain ...... 194 6.2.5 Language management at the supranational level ...... 195 6.3 CONCLUSION ...... 195 CHAPTER 7 ...... 196 CONCLUSION ...... 196 7.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 196

xii

7.2 A SUMMARY ON FINDINGS ...... 196 7.2.1 Summary on the motivation behind revitalisation of Tonga ...... 196 7.2.2 Summary on the factors that have led to the development of Tonga ...... 198 7.2.3 Summary on the extent of the development of Tonga ...... 201 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 202 7.3.1 Summary of recommendations on the sustenance of Tonga development ...... 202 7.3.2 Recommendations for other minority groups ...... 204 7.4 CONCLUSION ...... 207 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 208 APPENDICES ...... 219

xiii

List of tables

Table 1: Explanation of the various factors interrelationships in the Systems Model of LP...... 22 Table 2: The symbols used in the Systems Model of LP ...... 24 Table 3: Qing Ping Lu: Observations of trading encounters ...... 32 Table 4: Linguistic profile of selected African countries...... 34 Table 5: Proportion of minority languages in African Countries...... 35 Table 6: A percentage summary of language policies in Africa...... 36 Table 7: Mozambique's language profile ...... 41 Table 8: UNESCO Factor 1: Intergenerational language transmission...... 60 Table 9: UNESCO Factor 3: Proportion of speakers within the total population...... 61 Table 10: UNESCO Factor 4: Trends in existing language domains ...... 62 Table 11: UNESCO Factor 5: Response to new domains and media ...... 63 Table 12: Factor 6: Materials for Language Education and Literacy...... 64 Table 13: Factor 7: Government and Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies, including Official Status and Use...... 66 Table 14: UNESCO Factor 8: Community members' attitudes towards their own language...... 67 Table 15:UNESCO Factor 9: Amount and Quality of documentation...... 68 Table 16: Towards a theory of Reversing Language Shift ...... 51 Table 17: Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale...... 70 Table 18: Shona and Ndebele geographical distribution...... 74 Table 19: Established mission stations...... 76 Table 20: Karanga subdialects and geographical location ...... 80 Table 21: Ndau subdialects and geographical location...... 80 Table 22: Language attitudes among the Khoesan of North-Eastern Botswana...... 97 Table 23: Gender composition of parents as per chiefs who are parents and other parents...... 117 Table 24: Parents' Level of Education ...... 118 Table 25: Parents' Mother Tongue Composition ...... 118 Table 26: Teacher Qualifications ...... 119 Table 27: Teachers' Mother Tongue Composition ...... 119 Table 28: Learners' Gender Composition ...... 120 Table 29: Learners' Level of Education ...... 120 Table 30: Learners' Language Composition Comparison in terms of Home Language, Mother Tongue and First Language ...... 121 Table 31: Home Language for Learners ...... 123 Table 32: Home Language for Parents ...... 123 Table 33: Home Language for Teachers ...... 124 Table 34: First Language for Learners ...... 125 Table 35: First Language for Parents ...... 125 Table 36: First Language for Teachers ...... 126

xiv

Table 37: Parents' Preference for Home Language for Children and Grandchildren ...... 127 Table 38: Parents' Preference on Children's Home Language- children's responses ...... 129 Table 39: Parents and Learners' Responses regarding their pride with Tonga ...... 130 Table 40: Reasons why Parents and Learners feel proud talking in Tonga ...... 131 Table 41: Reasons why Learners do not feel proud talking in Tonga ...... 132 Table 42: Parents, Teachers and Learners' Responses to how they feel about Tonga being examined at Grade 7 and taught as a subject at secondary school level ..... 132 Table 43: Reasons why Parents, Learners and Teachers feel proud now that Tonga is examined at Grade 7 ...... 133 Table 44: Teachers' reasons why Learners enjoy being taught in Tonga ...... 134 Table 45: Advantages of using Tonga as Language of Learning and Teaching- Teachers' Responses ...... 136 Table 46: Disadvantages of using Tonga as LOLT - Teachers' Responses ...... 136 Table 47: Reasons for the possibility of Tonga as LOLT at Tertiary Colleges and Universities ...... 137 Table 48: Reasons against the Possibility of Using Tonga as LOLT at Tertiary Colleges and Universities ...... 137 Table 49: Learners' Responses to whether they want to be taught using Tonga at College/University Level ...... 138 Table 50: Secretary's Circular 1 of 2002 - Proposed Progression of minority language teaching per grade per year...... 155 Table 51: Teaching of Tonga in Binga District ...... 162 Table 52: Assessment of Tonga at Independence, 1980, using information from informants and material culture ...... 178 Table 53: Current Status of Tong (2016) ...... 181 Table 54: Town of Ziguinchor: Wolof the First Language spoken in the Home ...... 186 Table 55: Community Radio Stations in South Africa ...... 192 Table 56: Community Newspapers in South Africa ...... 193

List of figures

Figure 1:The Systems Model of Language Planning (Milligan 2007) ...... 20 Figure 2: Language Distribution of Zimbabwe ...... 72

xvi

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION Globally, multilingualism is a reality. It is also a reality that in most cases where more than one language exists within the same environment, they exist in a di/triglossic situation. This makes language planning and policy formulation complex and problematic depending on how the different languages are viewed. Ruiz (1984) articulates three different theoretical positions as far as language planning orientations are concerned: where language is seen as (a) a problem, (b) a right and (c) a resource. In most cases, governments look at linguistic diversity as a problem and therefore want to forge national unity through monolingualism, thereby forcing minority language speakers to assimilate into the dominant languages. This adoption of a top- down language planning approach rarely accommodates the perspectives or needs of people from below (Heugh 2002:451). It strips minority language speakers of power, politically, economically and educationally. Such hegemonic tendencies by dominant languages thus often lead not only to discontentment, but also to linguistic, and even political wars.

Zimbabwe, the country under current study, is a multilingual country with 16 official languages which are: English, Shona, Ndebele, Chewa, Chibarwe, Kalanga, Koisan,

Nambya, Ndau, Shangani, sign language, Sotho, Tonga, Tswana, Venda and Xhosa

(Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013). Except for English, Shona and Ndebele, the rest are minority languages which do not enjoy the same prestige as the first three languages. Such a linguistic landscape points to the need for government to adopt an inclusive language policy which takes into cognisance the diversity and

1 interrelationships amongst languages in its environment, and to engage in language planning to manage Zimbabwe’s linguistic diversity. This should be sensitive to the idea that each language is unique and important in its own way and can thus be viewed as a resource. Indigenous languages play critical roles in culture, economics and politics (Makanda 2011:i). This study is thus grounded within the framework of language policy and planning, with a strong ecological approach to language planning.

The focus is on the Tonga language of western Zimbabwe and the aim is to investigate the factors that have led to the revitalisation of the Tonga language from linguistic doldrums. In this study, revitalisation is defined as ‘the imparting of new vigour to a language still in limited use or restricted use, most commonly by increasing use through the expansion of domains (Paulston et al. 1993). The study focuses on both micro and macro variables that enabled the linguistic development of Tonga and the motivation behind such development.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT/RESEARCH QUESTIONS Issues surrounding minority languages, in particular endangered languages, have taken centre stage since the late 20th century. The United Nations came to the realisation that the use of world languages is threatening the extinction of minority languages and mandated UNESCO to look into this issue. This culminated in the establishment of the Endangered Languages Committee in 1992. In 1993, the committee published the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages. Their emphasis is on the preservation and development of at-risk languages. The motivation for the preservation is succinctly summarised in the opening statement below made by the Endangered Languages Fund Committee, when it was instituted in the USA in

1995:

Languages have died off throughout history, but never have we faced the massive extinction that is threatening the world right now. As language professionals, we are faced with a stark reality: much of what we study will not be available to future generations. The cultural heritage of many people is crumbling while we look on. Are we willing to shoulder the blame for having stood by and done nothing? (emphasis mine) (Woodbury 1996).

Initiatives were not only embarked upon by UNESCO; Individual countries worldwide formed committees and called for conferences to deliberate on the issue. In 1992, the

Linguistics Society of America (LSA) was formed and the response in the United

Kingdom resulted in the formation of the Foundation for Endangered Languages in

1995. This united effort worldwide shows the seriousness of the problem. Even though a lot of work has been done since the 1990s, linguists have not yet come up with a blueprint on what to do in order to salvage the situation. This might be attributed to the diverse and complex linguistic environments in which these endangered languages exist. This, then, calls for research that looks at particular linguistic environments, and explores possible solutions, which is the focus of the present study.

The fate of minority languages in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, which face serious threats from dominant languages, is a cause for concern. Many minority languages in the world are on the verge of extinction, yet “we read the identity of people with whom we come into contact based on very subtle features of behaviour, among which those of language are particularly central” (Joseph 2006:39). The death of minority languages does not only affect the languages, but also the identities of its speakers and their cultures. You cannot ask someone to change the way he or she uses language without asking him or her to change something essential about his or her identity (Fought

2006:195), hence the death of a language is the death of its people (Paulychko as cited by Taylor 1989).

As mentioned in Section 1.1 above, Zimbabwe is a multilingual state. However, from a political perspective, there seems to be a deliberate reluctance to harness all the linguistic resources in the Zimbabwean linguistic ecology. This seems to be based on the premise that linguistic unity warrants national unity, a political stance that, in fact, has led to the disgruntlement of many. Unfortunately, for minority languages, efforts on language development have been largely associated with central government, hardly the most likely or the most sympathetic auspices for minority language revitalisation (Fishman 2006:79). Minority languages have, therefore been left to face possible extinction.

In spite of this lack of support and commitment from the Zimbabwe government, Tonga the language under current study has seen marked development. It should be noted that Tonga, just like other minority languages, has been sidelined and given low functional status. The Tonga speakers have made efforts and embarked on initiatives to promote their language since 1976. After decades of struggle, Tonga was introduced on National FM radio in 2001, raised to indigenous language status in 2002 and first examined at Grade 7 level in 2011. What should be borne in mind is the fact that it is not only Tonga which has been fighting for linguistic recognition, but also other minority languages like Shangani, Venda, Kalanga, to name a few. Tonga has not been given any preferential treatment either. What is noted is the fact that Tonga currently stands out from the rest of the languages, in terms of development. The researcher therefore saw the need to thoroughly investigate and identify the factors that have led to this development, which the other languages might have missed. The study therefore intended to engage with minority language speakers and to propose a set of feasible alternatives to the challenges of language development. Its value lies in the realisation that although top-down language-planning efforts have always been

4 the norm, bottom-up efforts can achieve the intended goals. The study is also significant in that it will highlight the reality that there is unity in linguistic diversity for it ensures linguistic citizenship, which in turn ensures a feeling of belonging and identification.

This study therefore attempts to answer the following research questions:

 What is the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language?

 What factors have contributed to this linguistic development?

 What is the extent of the development of Tonga?

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY As its objectives, the study seeks to:

 Examine the motivation behind the development of the Tonga language.

 Examine the factors that have led to the development of Tonga.

 Assess attitudes towards the Tonga language.

 Explore the language choice patterns exhibited by the Tonga people, and

 Assess the extent of the development thus far.

1.4 STRUCTURE OF STUDY This research is organised into seven chapters. An overview of the chapters is given below:

Chapter One provides a brief background to the problems associated with multilingual ecologies, which emanates in most cases from a particular polity’s ideological stance.

These ideologies do not take into consideration the needs and interests of minority language speakers. The chapter also discusses the problem statement and states the research questions as well as the objectives of the study.

Chapter Two presents a discussion of literature relevant to the current study, in particular literature on language policy and planning. The chapter discusses the following tenets: ideological linguistic orientations, models of language planning, current trends in language policy and planning and also language policy and planning within the African context. Lastly, the chapter discusses a multi-dimensional analytic approach comprising the following: UNESCO (2003) Nine Factors, Fishman’s (1991)

Reversing Language Shift and Lewis & Simmons (2010) Extended Graded

Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS). One approach could not be used to explain all the data gathered, hence the multi-dimensional approach.

Chapter Three provides a background to the language question in Zimbabwe. It traces the language history of Zimbabwe from the time the missionaries entered the country.

It also gives an analysis of Doke’s (1931) recommendations, which the researcher believes acted as the blueprint for the marginalisation of some languages in

Zimbabwe.

Chapter Four deals with research methodology. The chapter explores the research design, approaches to data collection as well as data collection techniques used in the study. The research site, population and sampling methods are also explained. The last part of the chapter deals with issues of trustworthiness and rigour as well as ethical considerations.

Chapter Five presents, analyses and discusses the data gathered.

Chapter Six discusses proposed management strategies for the maintenance and further development of the gains of linguistic revitalisation of Tonga. This takes into cognisance Calvet’s (1998) approach to language management.

Chapter Seven outlines the main conclusions of the study and provides recommendations.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter explores literature that informs the present study. The study deals with the motivation of the revitalisation of Tonga and the factors that have led to the revitalisation. Of relevance are issues of language planning and policy. This is crucial because Africa, and in particular Zimbabwe, the country under study is multilingual. In addition to that, colonialism brought with it an influx of foreign languages into Africa, bringing with it what Roscoe (1971:1) calls a cultural collision. This makes language planning for African governments and communities complex. The chapter also deals with the theoretical framework adopted for this research.

2.2 LANGUAGE PLANNING A number of linguists have defined language planning and the various definitions give emphasis to different aspects. According to Grin (1996),

Language planning is a systematic, rational, theory-based effort at societal level to solve language problems with a view to increasing welfare. It is typically conducted by official bodies or their surrogates, and aimed at part or all of the population living in its jurisdiction.

The definition suggests that there are set standards which should be followed in times of linguistic crises and that the responsibility lies with the government. What is fundamental is the fact that problem solving is aimed at community welfare. According to Webb (2002:30), the focus of language planning should be the economic, social, educational, political and cultural welfare of society. Any policy operating outside these parameters would render language a barrier to community welfare. While the above is a plausible definition of language planning, many African governments are guilty of applying it to certain sections of society, thereby creating discontent and disunity amongst communities under their jurisdiction. This creates hegemonic tendencies on some languages over others.

Weisten (1980) in Moto (2009:3) defines language planning as a government authorised, long-term, sustained and conscious effort to alter a language’s function in a society for the purpose of solving communication problems. Once again, the purpose of language planning is to solve language problems and the organ responsible is the

8 government. This top-down strategy of language planning normally leaves a lot to be desired in multilingual contexts. This is because altering a language or changing a language function is normally done without consulting the people concerned and this is usually met with resistance. Secondly, some governments can use it as a way of advancing particular interests, for example, advancing the interests of the Afrikaner group by imposing Afrikaans as the official language in apartheid South Africa. This is an example of colonial and imperial policy, which by its nature aims at reducing people’s welfare. A number of post-colonial governments in multilingual polities has also adopted this imperialist approach to language planning. Government sanctioned processes according to Moto (2009:3), can take two forms:

1. Direct intervention in altering functions of languages, for example what happened in South Africa, Tanzania, Malawi, to mention just a few.

This intervention can be positive or negative, for instance, President Kamuzu Banda’s imposition of Chichewa in Malawi; Julius Nyerere’s declaration of Swahili as the national language of Tanzania and apartheid South Africa’s imposition of Afrikaans. The one advantage of government intervention though, is that where government intervenes, it normally legitimises.

2. Letting language matters take their own course.

In this instance, government does not take any interest in what is happening in various linguistic communities under its jurisdiction, it turns a blind eye and lets languages be. The main disadvantage of this, on the part of language communities is that whatever they do, will not be legitimised through policy. Zimbabwe, the country under study, initially chose non-involvement where the so-called minority languages are concerned.

From the two definitions discussed above, two things stand out. Language planning is an activity that is done by government. Language planning is also an activity aimed at solving language problems. The act of planning itself takes into cognisance certain factors in a bid to formulate language policies that would address perceived linguistic problems.

2.3 IDEOLOGICAL LINGUISTIC ORIENTATIONS Language policies are largely a result of attitudes towards languages within a particular polity. These dispositions, according to Ruiz (1984:16), are basic to

9 language planning in that they delimit the ways we talk about language and language issues, they determine the basic questions we ask, the conclusions we draw from the data, and even the data themselves. He proposes three ideological orientations towards language: language as a resource, language as a right and language as a problem. Although some linguists would like to believe that the three ideological inclinations are mutually exclusive, a closer look at some linguistic ecologies show that they are interwoven. The bottom line however, is that government or language planners’ dispositions towards a particular language will influence language policy formulation.

2.3.1 Language as a resource According to the Collins Advanced Learners Dictionary (2003), a country’s resources are the things that it has and can use to increase its wealth. According to Wright (2002), if something can accurately be described as a resource, then by its very nature, it carries with it or attracts, at least in potential, the social motivation associated with its utilisation, development or exploitation of that resource. A resource therefore, is something that is useable and can add value. So, what does it mean to say that language is a resource? In what way can language be utilised?

Closer to looking at language as a resource is what Tauli (1974, as cited by Ruiz 1984) would call language as a means or as tool. He contends that all tools are useful and serve different purposes. As tools, languages also serve different purposes, and some languages can be more useful than others.

Drawing on the Human Capital Theory, particularly on the Multiple-Intelligences Theory by Gardener (1983), human capital is not unidimensional since there are many dimensions or types of skills. His particular emphasis is on how many geniuses or famous personalities were unskilled in some other dimensions. What this means is that different people possess different skills but they all work together for the good of the organisation. A highly educated and knowledgeable worker might lack in another skill, which is more or less important in the organisation’s production circle. The organisation will therefore make use of various human capital skills to enhance its productivity. Remuneration will, however, be given according to the value innate or otherwise possessed by the worker. Loosely speaking, human capital corresponds to

10 any stock of knowledge or characteristics that the worker has; either innate or acquired that contributes to his or her productivity (Acemoglu & Autor 2009:3).

Following the human capital analogy, we can then say that each language has some degree of capital value, which can be utilised for enhancing societal welfare. It can also be said that languages within a multilingual ecology, more often than not, may not have the same value. At the same time, it might be very difficult for one language to meet all the demands of society just as there are also possibilities of famous personalities lacking in some skills. What this means, therefore, is that different languages do have different values and can thus be utilised differently for the betterment of society. In other words, languages can be used as resources for societal welfare. Co-existence without confrontation is therefore possible because the reasons for the two or more languages are very different (Crystal 2000:80). In this way, looking at language as resource is not claiming parity for all the languages within a particular polity or linguistic ecology. Instead, it is about acknowledging the fact that no one language is perfect and can be utilised for all purposes. Communities have various needs, which can be met by various languages. The hegemonic tendencies by some languages would therefore mean that some societal needs are neglected. This neglect or act of intolerance would normally result in disgruntlements. In simple terms, monolingualism for whatever reason does not work, particularly in a multilingual society.

In labour economics, generally speaking, a worker with the highest value or skill also gets the highest remuneration (Acemoglu & Autor 2009). The same can be said in terms of language development. The greater the linguistic market, the greater the resources allocated in terms of development. Therefore, the question of developing all languages within any ecology should not be negotiable. What needs to be negotiated is to what extent languages could be developed and whether there should be parity amongst all languages in a given ecology. Where there is no parity, there should be clear functional distinctions.

What we need to identify now are the instances where language can be utilised as a resource for community welfare. It is argued that the articulate use of language, the mastery of more than one language, and high levels of literacy are the resources of citizens to participate in the public life of their society, as much as they are acts of

11 identity and communication (http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/faculties/hass/scilt/publications/languageandliteracy/c hapters.pdf). Most studies (Fought 2006, Wolfram & Dannenberg 1999, Taylor 1989) have indeed looked at language as a resource available in multi-ethnic communities for speakers to use in indexing ethnic identity and a tool for communication. Ability to speak more than one language is indeed a resource since people can code-switch as and when necessary, and in some instances uses a completely different language. However, a closer look at language attests to the fact that languages do play functions that are far more crucial in communities. A language can be seen as a resource with intellectual, cultural, economic and social manifestations (ibid.)

2.3.1.0 Resource dimensions The following four resource dimensions: intellectual, cultural, economic and citizenship are going to be discussed.

2.3.1.1Language as an intellectual resource All human knowledge is formulated, constructed in and through language. Language is therefore a resource, which embodies particular fields of human knowledge. This is the main reason why there is so much debate on the importance of mother tongue language as a tool for teaching and learning. The use of a familiar home language has been found to facilitate understanding and concept formation and development in pupils (Cummins 1994). This means that through education, learners’ cognitive abilities are enhanced. This enhancement has a profound effect on academic achievement, which is a stepping- stone towards intellectual and ultimately economic empowerment. This might explain why most minority language communities (including the Tonga community under study) where the medium of instruction in school is different from the language of the home languish in poverty. In so far as language is an intellectual resource in this instance, it has far-reaching results. The world’s knowledge is stored in languages. Western knowledge is stored in English and other western languages. Thus, African knowledge should also be stored in African languages. It is therefore advisable for African governments and communities to seriously consider their language-in-education policies if they want to create nations and communities with competitive intellects and economies.

2.3.1.2 Language as an economic resource One thing about the world of economics is the fact that its dynamics are constantly changing. In ancient times, a country’s wealth was measured by its natural resources. With the emergence of technology, there seems to be shift towards emerging markets of expertise, knowledge and capability ((http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/faculties/hass/scilt/publications/languageandliteracy/ chapters.pdf)). Interwoven in these factors is the issue of language, especially with world economies shifting from one continent to another, from one country to another, thus creating a wave of interdependent economies. This highlights the importance of linguistic diversity in the economic world. As far back as 1978, Fishman had the vision that English monolingualism was bad for business. This claim is justified by the fact that new economic powerhouses have now emerged in Asia and in non-English native speaker parts of Europe. It should also be noted that these powerhouses are also finding markets for their goods and services elsewhere, which widens the geolinguistic ecology.

Maybe talking about global economies may sound too far-fetched for third world countries, more so, minority language communities since world economies are dominated by developed countries. Normally countries within the same region do get involved in what has come to be known as cross-border trading. For example, a country like Zimbabwe is involved in cross-border trading with all the countries that it shares borders with. In most cases, this cross-border trading is a form of informal enterprise but contributes significantly to the welfare of countries and communities involved (Muzvidziwa 2012, Rwodzi 2011).

During the period of Zimbabwe’s economic downturn between 2005 and 2009, the country survived on this kind of trade. What is important is the fact that trade was not, and still is not, carried out in English. Neither is it carried out in Shona or any other dominant languages. It is the so-called minority languages like Tonga, Venda, Nyanja, and Shangani, which rose to the occasion. This was specifically made possible by the fact that these languages are also spoken in these neighbouring countries. People who could only speak English and Shona were in trouble because of their lack of communicative competence in the language of cross-border trading. In most developing countries, there is also a drive towards upgrading the informal sector into the mainstream economy. In such cases, no matter how developed English and other

13 dominant languages are, they are found wanting, they are not the appropriate means or tools for the trade (Muzvidziwa 2012, Rwodzi 2011). Ndhlovu (2010) argues that minority languages have enormous value in local communities (higher than that of standardised official/national languages) and in cross-border situations where they serve as essential media for getting by and carrying out economic transactions. Ndhlovu (2010) clearly explains the value of minority languages in cross-border trading below:

… the use of minority languages as media of business and trade across national frontiers defies nationally imposed hegemonic languages. In order to do cross border business in much of Southern Africa, for example, one does not necessarily need to be fluent in hegemonic national languages like Shona, Ndebele, Zulu and Xhosa. Rather, what matters most is proficiency in minority languages such as Venda, Sotho, Tonga, Shangani and Kalanga (and their variants) that are spoken across different national borders (2010:178).

The utilisation of languages as means or tools for economic development and sustenance can also be found in the farming, mining and construction industries of many countries.

2.3.1.3 Language as a cultural resource According to Duranti (1977:336) cited by Craith (2007), language connects us to our past, present and future, it becomes our past, present and future, and through it, we express our identity. Culture defines a people and this identity manifestation is seen or expressed through language. To successfully learn and use a language, one must also learn the culture associated with the language. Encouraging monolingualism is thus encouraging monoculture, and in the process a people’s cultural integrity and identity is eroded. Being intolerant of other people’s languages is denying them their culture, their identity. In as much as there is need for social and political cohesion and peaceful co-existence between and amongst people, it would be a fallacy to think or assume that people do not value their unique individuality as communities. Maintaining and defining languages becomes the only way of nurturing cultural vitality.

2.3.1.4 Language as a citizenship resource The question of citizenship is the main bone of contention in multi-lingual, multi-cultural communities where monolingualism is practised. Denying people the use of their language is denying them the opportunity to express themselves. Hegemonic

14 language tendencies suppress communities and deny them linguistic citizenship in their own countries. This has an impact on the people’s self-worth and self-esteem, which in turn negatively affects participation in any field, economic, educational, social or political. Full participation and interest in national development is achieved if people feel that they are part of the development and that they would benefit from the development. This feeling of belonging is realised when there is acknowledgement and recognition of the value bestowed on individual languages, which would manifest in the use of these languages for information dissemination. Easy access to information can determine the level of participation, which is high if information is disseminated in a familiar language. Therefore, if governments really need people’s participation for national interests, they should consider language, as a commodity, a tool that has to be developed for particular national interests (Ricento 2005).

2.3.2 Language as a problem Most authors on language planning look at language planning as “an activity which attempts to solve a problem (Fishman 1974a, 1979, Haugen, Rubin & Shuy 1973). According to Karam (1979:48), language problems are inherent in multilingual situations and the more languages there are to choose from, the more complex the problems tend to become. Multilingualism thus becomes a problem when language planners are faced with issues of language development as well as assigning of functions to different languages. Most governments and language planners who view language this way adopt monolingual language policies, which many argue, would be for the purposes of social cohesion and national unity. Hufstedler, as cited by Ruiz (1984:21) has the following to say about America:

Cultural diversity is one of America’s greatest strength. We could not suppress it if we would; and we should not suppress it if we could. But unity is also America’s strength. And the ability of every citizen to communicate in our national language is the keynote of unity.

Hufstedler’s statement points to the misconstrued idea that there is no unity in diversity and that uniformity in linguistic use defines national unity. On the contrary, such a way of looking at language, and such a way of solving linguistic problems has resulted in too many ethnic wars in Africa and beyond. More often than not, it is the indigenous minority languages, which are eradicated.

While most governments would hide behind monolingualism for the purpose of political unity, some would look at undesirable societal conditions like poverty, low educational achievements and low or no economic mobility and others as results of language problems. These identified social problems are usually associated with indigenous minorities or immigrants. The problems alluded to above have led many governments to consider in their language planning, a number of language related programs to solve these problems. One of the most popular programs was the introduction of the 1968 Bilingual Education Act (BEA) in the United States of America. This was aimed at non- English speaking groups, whose languages were thought to be intellectually limited and linguistically deficient (Heugh 2002, Ruiz 18984).

2.3.3 Language as a right Apart from looking at language as a resource and a problem, it can also be looked at from a rights perspective. Issues of language rights have not been given much attention in Africa and as a result, the majority of African indigenous languages have been, and are still, being marginalised. The language as a right orientation seeks to protect languages in any linguistic ecology, as well as the people who speak that particular language. Ethnic or social groups claim certain linguistic rights as a way of shielding themselves against the hegemonic tendencies of dominant languages. These rights include the right to culture, freedom of expression, right to information, freedom from discrimination (Maja 2007:13), the right to use ethnic languages in legal proceedings and the right to bilingual education (Mackey 1979, cited by Magwa 2010:42), the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of language and the right to use your language in the activities of the communal life (Macias 1979, as cited by Magwa 2010:42). Most government legislation is not explicit on language rights. This orientation therefore expects governments to uphold legislation that encourages the preservation of languages in their ecologies as a way of protecting different ethnic groups in their jurisdictions.

2.4 LANGUAGE POLICY Language policy refers to a process in which a social group formulates a series of laws, norms, as well as rules and regulations based on their positions in social communications (Cai 2003, as cited by Yang & Wang 2016). Language policy can be implicit/covert or explicit/overt. In this section, I am going to discuss language policy types as discussed by Ruiz (1995). Following the typology presented by Cobarrubius

(1983), he discusses three types of language policies: endoglossic, exoglossic and mixed policies.

Endoglossic policies are those that give primacy to, and promote, an indigenous language of the community (Ruiz 1995:75). Ruiz further posits that endoglossic policies pose no particular practical or political problems where an indigenous language is also a language of wider communication (LWC) with high prestige value inside and outside native contexts.

Exoglossic policies, on the other hand, give primacy to, and promote, an outside, frequently a former colonial language; the adoption of a language in a non-native context is a major indication of LWC status (Ruiz 1995:75). In most cases and in Africa in particular, this happens where the former colonial language policies are simply inherited by the independent states. Most countries opted for the perpetual use of the language of the ex-colonisers mainly for three reasons:

 Ex-colonial languages (English, French, and Portuguese) are languages of wider communication and are associated with high prestige and modernity.  Multilingualism in Africa is seen as a liability and a burden, particularly when considered in the context of the amount of resources needed to promote the use of multiple languages in the domains of education, media, commerce, etc. (Ndhlovu 2008:4)  Most governments see ex-colonial languages as neutral since they are not affiliated to any ethnic group. Such a decision is against the idea that linguistic diversity is a threat to the task of nation building.

Finally, mixed policies are essentially bilingual policies; they accommodate the promotion of both indigenous and outside languages (Ruiz 1995:76). Situations where both languages are at par in terms of status and functional use are very rare, though. With most African countries coming from colonialism, the ex-colonial and the indigenous languages are not on the same level. When two languages of unequal socio-political or economic strength come into contact, what Batibo (2005:64) calls a pressure-resistance relationship will arise. When languages that are put under pressure are not resistant enough, a diglossic relationship will emerge. Most governments and communities simply lack the political will to exert enough resistance and therefore end up opting for, and accepting, mixed policies. 17

2.5 TYPES OF LANGUAGE PLANNING Language planning falls under three categories, which are as follows:

2.5.1 Status planning Status in linguistic terms has to do with the position of a language in relation to the other languages in the ecology and the prestige bestowed on it. Status planning is therefore positioning a language by either upgrading or demoting it in terms of the domains in which it can be used. According to Fishman (1974), status planning can also be called function planning since it is mainly concerned with the functions allocated to the language. An example is elevating a language to official status. This means a language will gain entry into new domains and will therefore assume new functions. Alternatively, a language can be demoted and it ceases to be used in certain domains. It therefore loses its linguistic status within the community.

2.5.2 Corpus planning This is mainly concerned with the nature of the language in terms of form and structure. It involves two aspects, namely, codification and elaboration (Magwa 2010:44). Codification includes processes such as graphisation, grammatication, lexication, harmonisation, whilst elaboration is simply modernisation (Magwa 2010:44).

2.5.3 Acquisition planning The main drive here is to bring in new speakers to a language. This is done through various strategies, for example, availing incentives to those willing to learn a new language.

2.6 MODELS OF LANGUAGE PLANNING Although there are a number of language planning models propounded by various authors, in this section, only the Planning Model (Rubin et al. 1971) and Systems Model (Milligan 2007) of language planning are going to be discussed. This is for the mere reason that they are deemed particularly applicable to the African scenario.

2.6.1 The Systems Model of Language Planning (LP) The systems model of LP brings about the idea that in the study of any language, its corpus, status and acquisition are intertwined in such a way that any part of a language function is part of a system. It places emphasis on the relationships between linguistic variables and embraces external influences on language planning.

According to the systems thinking, the need for language planning arises when the prevalence of one group of language users in a diverse language community is greater or lesser than desired (Milligan 2007). A systems model can thus be used to adjust the status quo towards the desired goals. Depending on the status quo of the languages, or the disparity between or amongst languages, LP can be positive or negative. Since Tonga, the language under study, had been marginalised in a number of domains, it mainly takes on positive language planning.

Positive language planning

Positive LP is an LP activity, which is undertaken with the aim of promoting a language or increasing its domain influence, which is the case with Tonga revitalisation. In most cases, positive LP aims to keep a minority or endangered language from falling into disuse and/or extinction, but it can also be enacted for majority languages in order to secure strength (Milligan 2007). As alluded to earlier, status planning alongside corpus and acquisition activities will all be taking place as part of one process.

Negative LP

Unlike positive LP, negative LP is concerned with demoting or minimising the influence of a language. Milligan (2007) states that we often talk about negative LP in relation to the suppression of a minority language group by a majority language group. However, negative LP may also be enacted in coordination with positive LP efforts in order to couple the strengthening of a minority language with the weakening of a majority language. Whereas the three language planning types (status, corpus and acquisition) are involved though at varying degrees in positive LP, for negative LP, the aim is to decrease the status and acquisition of a language. There is therefore little or no concern with corpus planning. The revitalisation efforts of the Tonga community is modelled along both negative and positive language planning, that is, minimising the influence of dominant languages and maximising the use of Tonga in various domains of language use and increasing its acquisition.

The diagram below shows the interrelationships between variables and their effects on a number of factors through the systems model initiative.

Figure 1: The Systems Model of Language Planning (Milligan 2007) Source: Milligan (2007:194)

Tonga and Milligan’s (2007) Systems Model of Language Planning

As can be deduced from Fig 1 above, the Systems Model of Language Planning revolves around actual population of Xish users. The Xish users in this research are Tonga speakers. The idea is to increase Tonga users through both natural and unnatural ways. Naturally, Tonga speakers can be increased through an increase in birth rate. Unnaturally, the population of Tonga speakers can be increased through increasing the perceived attractiveness of Tonga. This can be done through what

Beukes (2009) refers to as the institutionalisation of a language. The vision is to work on the language to enhance its value and then market it by making inroads into domains like educational, economic and political domains. This positive language planning will thus increase proficiency in the language as well as acquisition of the language by non-Xish users. The increase in both the population of Tonga users as well as the domains in which the language can be used ensures the vitality of the language.

Detailed explanation of the Systems Model of Language Planning, Fig 1

Learning resources

Previously considered a concern of acquisition planning, learning resources that are promoted or discouraged through LP activity have a direct impact upon the acquisition of Xish by non-Xish users or by Xish users who are developing proficiency. Learning resources also influence acquisition and abandonment through the intermediary variable ‘perceived attractiveness’.

Political status

A subset of status planning, the political status afforded to Xish directly influences the attractiveness with which Xish is perceived. LP activity that manipulates political status affects Xish acquisition and abandonment only after having altered the perception of the language.

Economic functions

The economic functions of Xish, which were previously a concern of status planning, alter the perceived attractiveness of the language. Employment through Xish, consumerism in Xish, and the use of Xish in an international market are all factors included in this economic variable. LP activity can manipulate economic functions of Xish in order to change its prevalence. As with political status, economic functions only affect Xish acquisitions and abandonment after having altered the perceived attractiveness of the language.

Corpus

Directly coordinating with corpus planning, the corpus variable in this system model of planning acknowledges that LP activity may alter the actual orthography, grammar, phonology and vocabulary of Xish. Such changes in corpus, however, must have an impact upon the way in which the language is used (markers of status)

21 before influencing the perceived attractiveness of Xish or its acquisition and abandonment.

Cultural functions

A subset of status planning, the cultural functions of Xish change the way in which the language is perceived. When LP activity changes the cultural function of Xish (whether ethnic, religious or other), these changes do not directly affect the number of people abandoning or acquiring the language. Instead, and as with political status and economic functions, these cultural manipulations have ramifications upon the perceived attractiveness of the language and this, in turn, alters the actual population using Xish.

Time delays in language planning

Change is not immediate. Particularly in the case of language use and acquisition, language planners must be aware that changes in Xish prevalence may take years or generations before manifesting. There are time delays between the initiation of an intervention (LP activity) and the response to that intervention by a corresponding variable (ultimately the actual population of Xish users).

Table 1: Explanation of the various factors interrelationships in the Systems Model of LP. Source: Milligan (2007:195-196)

SYMBOLS IN THE MODEL

The table below explains the symbols used in the Systems model Fig .1.

Stocks

A stock in systems modelling is the accumulation of tangible or intangible things within a system. In this model, there is only one stock and it is bordered by a single- line rectangle. This stock is the actual population of Xish users and it is measured in people. We discuss the state of the LP system by calculating the level of this stock. To determine the efficacy of LP interventions, we will need to compare stock values at an initial time point against subsequent measures.

Flows

A flow indicates movement of matter in and out of a stock according to the direction of its arrowhead. Flows are illustrated as straight double lines and represent the means and rates at which stock quantities alter. In this model, one flow demonstrates the increase in Xish users, while the second depicts the decrease in Xish users. As with the model’s stock, these flows must be measured in people, but

22 with attention also being paid to time. Movement in and out of a stock through these flows must be measured in intervals and discussed in terms of rates

Clouds

Clouds are symbols connected to flows that indicate that the precise source or means of departure for a stock is beyond the concern of the model.

Valves

Valves, which look like small hour glasses, lie along the paths of the flows and indicate the means by which and the rates at which stock quantities alter. In this model we can see that four variables: birth rate, acquisition of Xish, Xish abandonment, and death rate are all variables which directly influence valves controlling the flow of people in and out of the actual population stock.

Variables

Variables are any aspects that influence a rate of flow, like corpus or even the balance of positive vs negative LP activity itself. In this model, there are fourteen individual variables that directly or indirectly affect the two aforementioned flows and stock and they are represented as word strings.

Causal links

Illustrated as a single curved line, causal links indicate the influence of one variable over another, according to the direction of their arrowheads. Causal links visually identify the interconnectivity that is at the heart of this system model of LP.

Positive polarity indicators

A small positive sign adjacent to a causal link’s arrowhead indicates that if the causal variable increases, then the impacted variable will also increase.

Negative polarity indicators

A small negative sign adjacent to a casual link’s arrowhead indicates that if the casual variable increases, then the impacted variable will decrease.

Goal-seeking loop identifier

Illustrated as a circle with a vertical/horizontal cross in its centre, the goal-seeking loop identifier indicates that the polarity of its casual loop is negative and, therefore, operates to move the system to a goal state. This goal state is determined by reference to the system’s stock, in this case the actual population of Xish users.

Reinforcing loop identifier

Illustrated as a circle with a diagonal cross at its centre, the reinforcing loop identifier indicates that the polarity of the casual loop is positive and, therefore, operates to move the system to an exponential growth/decline with reference to the system’s stock, in this case the actual population of Xish users.

Table 2: The symbols used in the Systems Model of LP Source: Milligan (2007:196-198)

2.6.2 The Planning Model (PM) The PM looks at language planning just like any other planning that can be undertaken for nation development. Rubin et al (1971:218) cited by Chumbow (1987) states that PM proceeds by defining goals and planning objectives in the direction of national development and by selecting means and procedures for achieving the goals so that potential results can be predicted in a systematic and straightforward manner. PM is characterised by some of the following features:

 The model emphasizes fact-finding in terms of relevant sociolinguistic surveys and profiles, and demographic, cultural and political considerations, as input to policy decisions.  Policy is arrived at from a judicious choice of ideal policy from among carefully articulated policy alternatives.  Cost-benefit analysis is envisaged and undertaken as an integral part of policy formulation. Adoption of a policy means acceptance of financial implications.  A central agency, such as government authority, is required to coordinate all planning activities and maximize all efforts directed towards national development.  It follows from the above that the planning model of language planning is future- oriented in two ways: o Strategies and policies, as well as procedures, cost, and outcome are specified in advance of action taken to implement the policy. o Planners are prepared to concede the effort, time and resources as an investment in a project whose results lie in a long-term expectation. (Chumbow 1987:16)

Studies in the PM of language planning have evolved over the years and include work by Haugen 1969, Fishman et al. 1971, Jernudd 1973 and Chimbow 1982/1984. Generally, there is a consensus among linguists that LP is a process and that the main objective of the LP process can only be achieved if the process is done in a systematic way. This resulted in linguists proposing a number of stages that should be followed. Although these stages may seem to vary, the basic, underlying phenomena that they deal with are more or less the same. The earliest stages of language planning initiated

24 by Haugen (1969) form the basis upon which later proposals were formulated. He proposes the four stages of selection, codification, elaboration and propagation, while Fishman (1971/1979) reduces the number of stages to three by combining Haugen’s codification and elaboration into one. The selection and propagation stages are renamed policy formulation and implementation respectively, but deal with the same issues. Chumbow (1982, 1984) looks at the process of LP as a two-stage process: policy formulation and policy implementation. Both stages consist of a number of sub- processes as follows:

STAGE ONE: POLICY FORMULATION

 Sociolinguistic fact-finding input  Policy decisions  Outline of implementation  Cost-benefit analysis of planning  Evaluation

STAGE TWO: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

 Codification  Elaboration  Reforms  Dissemination  Evaluation

Great emphasis is placed on evaluation, which runs throughout both stages. This is very important in terms of assessing the viability and success of an LP decision. According to Dye (1987), as cited by Makanda (2009:34), there are five conditions, which must be evaluated on a well-crafted policy, which are:

 its impact on the target situation or group  its impact on situations or groups other than the target (spill over effects)  its impact on future as well as immediate conditions  its direct costs, in terms of resources devoted to the programme  its indirect costs, including loss of opportunities to do other things.

Following systematic processes in LP would surely yield remarkable results. The problem in Africa, however, is that in most cases language planning is an ad hoc activity, done by people who are not expert language planners, done without proper sociolinguistic research, and lacks any kind of evaluation. This has resulted in poor language planning in Africa, in general and an escalation of linguistic disgruntlement by its people.

2.7 LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT In any linguistic context, it is crucial that measures be put in place to manage language. The measures should be able to sustain the language and shield it against attrition, more so for languages, which would have gone through revitalisation processes. There is, in most cases, the danger of attrition if posterity measures are not taken into consideration.

Spolsky (2009:4) argues that language policy has a three-stage-tier of interrelated, but independently describable components, which are as follows:

 Practice: observable behaviours and choices – what people actually do such as the linguistic features chosen, the variety of language used. They provide the context of anyone learning a language.  Beliefs: about language, sometimes called an ideology. The beliefs that are most significant to language policy and management are the values or statuses assigned to named languages and varieties, for example, the role they play in identification, the variety (language) that I associate with my principal membership group, my nation, my educational class… is likely to have the highest value for me, while some other varieties (languages) may be stigmatised.  Management: the explicit and observable effort by someone or some group that has or claims authority over the participants in the domain to modify their practices or beliefs.

The above three components are crucial in that they work hand in hand and help account for language choices that people make. The choices, which manifest in language behaviour and give a reflection of the values ascribed to particular languages. Management strategies are then needed either to sustain or modify speakers’ practice and/or belief so that they align with the community’s language plan.

Management is therefore concerned with conscious efforts to control language choices.

My focus in this section is on the third component, language management. This component has a direct bearing on language practice and value from the individual level to nationhood. Communities or even governments may develop languages and put legislation and policies in place but if there is no proper language management, the result will be language attrition.

As alluded to by Spolsky (2009), language management entails efforts to offer solutions to language problems. It also entails strategies to sustain the vitality of languages by ensuring that policies are implemented. These policies are meant, according to Spolsky (2009), to modify speakers’ (and non-speakers’) practices and beliefs about their language. In other words, language management strategies help change people’s attitude towards either their own language or other people’s languages. Most communities and even governments have laid down very good policies but have failed to manage their languages alongside the laid down policies, resulting in non-implementation. South Africa, which has been applauded for coming up with one of the finest language policies (Beukes 2009, Heugh 2007), is also trapped in what Beukes (2009) calls a gap between ‘intention’ and ‘performance’. This impasse may be linked to a lack of support from the very people those language policies and implementation plans are aimed at. In other words, language management is not an activity for advocates for RLS and policy makers alone, but the end users of the languages as well. More so, where minority languages are concerned since development and revitalisation of their languages is mostly a bottom-up approach. They have to take the initiative and ensure that there is implementation of policies and that there are strategies to sustain what has been achieved through the drawing of policies.

The problem that has bedevilled most minority language communities, particularly in Zimbabwe is the fact that they seem to get easily satisfied by piecemeal language policies that are put forward by the government. What they should realise is the fact that language management is not a once off event. It is a process, which starts even before language policies are drawn. The process of language management according to Neustupny & Nekvapil (2003) begins with deviation from the norm, the deviation is

27 noted, the noted deviation is evaluated, and an adjustment plan is selected and then implemented. A policy on paper is therefore just as good as a dead language unless something is done to ensure congruity between what is on paper and the practical reality in terms of observable language behaviour.

This is not to underestimate the importance of policy formulation, particularly policies that are endorsed by governments because that on its own is some form of management. Even when minority language communities adopt a bottom-up approach, it is crucial from a language planning and policy point of view to ensure their efforts are legalised through government policy.

2.7.1 Agencies of Language Management Language management according to Neustupny and Nekvapil (2003) can be categorised into simple and organised management. Simple language management starts at individual level whereas organised language management ranges from the micro (family), the macro (nation-state) level to the meso (beyond the nation state) (Spolsky 2009:5). Language management is domain-driven particularly in areas of bi/multilingualism. Outside pressures also influence it. It should also be noted that this aspect of language management presupposes the idea of a manager. Someone has to be responsible for managing the use of the language across all levels of society where the language is in use.

2.7.2 Simple language management As discussed in section 2.7.1 above, language management starts at individual level (Neustupny and Nekvapil 2003, Spolsky 2009). This works under the premise that the individual has a positive attitude towards the language and is willing to choose this language over other languages s/he comes into contact with. Tonga, the language under study has been in contact with, and dominated by, Ndebele and Shona to such an extent that one is tempted to gravitate towards these two languages. This means in the course of communication, an individual speaker should be conscious enough to notice the inappropriateness or inadequacy of a choice he or she makes and sets out to self-correct (Spolsky 2009:11). In other words, the problem that needs to be solved, starting at individual level is the infiltration of other languages, particularly the dominant ones into the linguistic behaviour of an individual. The consequence of the infiltration of such languages in the life style of an individual is that, it has a ripple effect. That

28 behaviour can start with one person but can spread to cover the entire community, thus negatively affecting the revitalisation of languages leading to language attrition

2.7.3 Organised language management While the discussion above is centred on simple language management, this section focuses on organised language management in domains that range from family (micro) to beyond the nation state (meso). Spolsky (2009) discusses 11 domains as sites for organised language management. These domains are as follows: home and family, religion, workplace and business, public spaces, schools, legal and health professions, military organisations, government at various levels, language activism, multinational bodies, agencies and academies. The section below discusses ways of managing language in these various domains.

2.7.4 The home and family domain While we often look to the activities of a central authority, Spolsky’s model recognizes that language management (like charity) begins in the home. Angus (2010) points out that family language practices are the atom of community language management. Calvet (1998) puts it more succinctly by describing the family as a battlefield. Language management at individual level discussed in section 2.7.2 acts as the foundation for language management in the family. Language needs to be managed in the home for a number of reasons. Firstly, members of the language community (particularly in cases whereby the language is in the process of revitalisation or development) need to be constantly reminded of the importance of their language as a way of sustaining a positive attitude towards their language. This positive attitude needs to be passed on to new generations. It is crucial to manage these attitudes starting from the home to militate against pressures and influences from outside. Parents as language managers in the home have the responsibility to control their children’s language in the home and ensure competence in their children’s use of the language. This is done through the insistence of the use of the local language and correcting where the language is not used correctly and/or appropriately just as language teachers would correct language use in their learners. Even in the absence of explicit instruction, Spolsky (2009) argues, conscious control of the linguistic environment can be an effective method of managing the language socialisation of children.

2.7.5 Education domain Given the increasing role of the education sector as a tool for intergenerational transmission of language, language acquisition management is now primarily executed by the education sector through schooling (Ndlovu 2013). This is mainly because languages that are learned and used as vehicles of classroom instruction are looked at as prestigious and learners in most cases would have no problems taking the language of school home. By insisting on the use of a particular language, schools thus indirectly manage language attitudes and behaviour of their learners both in and out of school. At the same time, through this, the school system would be enforcing the language- in-education policy thereby avoiding the “the trap between intention and performance” (Beukes 2009:35). Where certain languages are not accommodated in the language-in-education policy, schools can act as battlefields for linguistic wars where communities’ “local language policies” are fought.

In his model, Spolsky (2009) also talks of the issue of managing language in schools through managing the admission of students. He argues that a powerful way to manage the language of a school is to set requirements for admissions that exclude students without certain language proficiencies (2009:111). In concurring with Spolsky, Batibo (2005:109) argues that language revival (and maintenance) is often facilitated by the lessening of dominance of the language that is causing the shift process. Such a restriction would make it easier to manage language at school, both in and out of the classroom. It also reduces the issue of linguistic heterogeneity in schools. The Afrikaans and English medium schools in South Africa are employing this same system. If the language of learning and teaching were Afrikaans, then learners who speak Afrikaans would enrol at such a school. If a learner cannot speak Afrikaans but want to enrol at such a school, then he or she has to learn Afrikaans. This is a reflection of positive language planning, increasing the number of Xmen through language acquisition in the domain of education. Unfortunately, for the Afrikaans scenario given above, the current MEC for Education in Gauteng is insisting that Afrikaans schools take in English learners and offer English medium tuition. If the Afrikaans community in Gauteng fail to fight this, the result will be language attrition for Afrikaans.

2.7.6 Media Establishing local or national print media houses is also another language management strategy. The idea of local newspapers and magazines is not new in Zimbabwe. It is being done in the case of the dominant languages in Zimbabwe. For Ndebele, there is the Umthunywa newspaper in circulation in Matabeleland while Kwaedza is published in Shona and is predominantly in circulation in Harare. There is no newspaper dedicated to any minority language, neither do the minority languages have space in the two newspapers except for occasional Tonga and Kalanga inserts in Umthunywa. The fact that there are only two newspapers publishing in two indigenous languages means that the existence of the rest of the languages in the Zimbabwe linguistic ecology is overshadowed by the hegemonic tendencies of these two languages. The only way minority languages can escape the shadows of Ndebele and Shona is by negotiating and creating space for themselves.

Just like in the print media, television broadcasting in Zimbabwe is in English, Shona and Ndebele. According to Maseko & Ndlovu (2013), Shona and Ndebele are used on television periodically and Shona enjoys prominence compared to Ndebele. Ndlovu (2008) as cited by Maseko & Ndlovu (2013) further argues that the situation obtaining is evidence of the hegemonic tendencies that Shona has over other indigenous languages, Ndebele in particular. This means that television is a site of contention, not only for minority languages, but for Ndebele as well.

2.7.7 Trade The area of trade is one other domain, which can be used as a site for language management. In his 1985 study, Calvet (1998) carried out research at the market of Qing Ping Lu in China and came up with the following observation:

Language Used No. of encounters per day Cantonese 249

Putonghua 14

Cantonese/Putonghua 10

Hakka 2

Hunan 2

Sichuan 2

Gestures 2

Writing 2

Table 3: Qing Ping Lu: Observations of trading encounters Source: Calvet (1998:79)

Cantonese is a local minority language in this area and Putonghua is a national language. Table 3 clearly indicates that Cantonese is the language of communication in the market and the national language has no place. The field of Commerce has it that the seller has to submit to the expectations of the customer. However, in this case, there has to be an exception to the rule if minority languages have to be managed. If the wheels of language planning changed from top-down to bottom-up, surely in this case rules can also be overturned. Calvet (1998) asserts the role of the market as a yardstick, which enables us to perceive major changes of language moving through society. He further asserts that the market functions as a developing agent in a photographic sense of the term. It precipitates the power relations between language groups. Minority languages constitute a crucial underused resource, which may find currency in the market place if harnessed properly. They play an important role in economic exchanges particularly in cultural industries and are often actors in developing trans-border co-operation (Council of Europe 2010).

2.7.8 Language management at the supranational level Although language policy issues have normally been associated with internal government activities with authority within government borders, globalisation has ushered in a new dimension to language policies that go beyond nation-state boundaries. In particular, the need for trade and business has necessitated the signing of treaties between and amongst nation states, resulting in supranational organisations. Countries that form a supranational organisation would agree on a common language policy for universal communication but individual nation states would pursue their own internal language policies. Spolsky (2009) cites organisations like the Commonwealth of Nations, Francophonie, Community of Portuguese Language Countries, United Nations, as examples of supranational organisations. A common thread that runs through all these organisations is the fact that their languages of preference are languages of wider communication. While language is in the title, the real focus of these organisations is political, economic and cultural activity (Spolsky 2009). Minority languages can also be used as rallying points for international

32 discussions on the same issues. Perhaps the most obvious one particularly for minority languages in Zimbabwe is economic activities. This works under the premise that before and during the country’s economic downturn between 2007 and 2010, there were various outward informal economic activities, which actually sustained the ailing economy of Zimbabwe. Research has shown that economic transactions were done with neighbouring countries through informal trading and that these transactions were mostly done in minority languages since these minority languages are also spoken across borders (Muzvidziwa 1998, Mhangami 2004, Makari 2011, Kachere 2011, Ama & Mangadi 2013). Examples of these minority languages are Tonga (which is also spoken in South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia), Venda (South Africa), Shangaan (South Africa, Mozambique), to name just a few.

Treaties can also be extended from economic to educational activities since some of these languages, which are minority in Zimbabwe, are dominant languages in other countries. This can be in terms of exchange language and cultural programmes. This way, minority languages will not be visible locally only, but space will be created for them even across borders.

2.8 LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY IN THE AFRICAN CONTEXT BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER INDEPENDENCE Multilingualism has been, and still remains a feature of the African linguistic ecology. Yahya-Othman (2005) cited by Moto (2009) notes that Tanzania alone has 120 ethnic languages, Kenya has more than 40 languages (Mbaabu 1996), while Zambia has over 70. Malawi has 13 languages while South Africa has 11 official languages (although according to Beukes (2004), some 25 languages are used in SA on a daily basis). The tables below from Batibo (2005:69) give a general linguistic profile of selected African countries.

COUNTRY POPULATION IN NUMBER OF MILLIONS LANGUAGES

Kenya 30 56

Sudan 32 121

Tanzania 35 124

Zaire (DRC) 50 209

Ethiopia 63 78

Nigeria 120 485

Cameroon 14 274

Ghana 20 76

Congo 2,5 53

Angola 11 39

Zimbabwe 11 17

Table 4: Linguistic profile of selected African countries Source: Batibo (2005:69)

The figures in table 4 above attest to the multilingual nature of African linguistic ecologies. Languages in all the countries listed above comprise of both dominant and minority languages. Zimbabwe, the country under study, boasts 17 recognised languages.

MINORITY COUNTRIES OR TERRITORIES LANGUAGES AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

1 0-19 Burundi, Canary Island, Cape Verde, Djibouti, Lesotho, Reunion, Rwanda, Seychelles, Swaziland

2 20-39 Comoro Islands, Egypt, Eritrea, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Sao Tome, Principe

3 40-59 Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

4 60-79 Algeria, Angola, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Togo

5 >80 Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Congo Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Nigeria, Tanzania

Table 5: Proportion of minority languages in African Countries Source: Batibo (2005)

The pattern above, which depicts rampant multilingualism in Africa points to a complex linguistic structure. This was made worse by colonialism, which imposed the language of the colonisers onto the colonised. With this imposition came calculated demonising of the African languages, which saw the erosion of the African languages and everything they stood for. Writing on African literature, Roscoe (1971) observes that African languages, which had served their communities for a very long time in putting on record different events and thought patterns, became a subject of ridicule and a sign and mark of an uncivilised, primitive and backward people. Languages of the colonisers became the official languages. This resulted in the geo-partitioning of Africa on linguistic grounds, hence French-speaking, Portuguese-speaking and English-speaking African countries. These colonial languages were associated with all high status functions like use in government and administration. They also became the languages of instruction in schools and vehicles of upward social and economic mobility. With the dawn of independence in most African countries, for example, Zimbabwe 1980, South Africa 1994, Malawi 1964, Mozambique 1975, governments were faced with a dilemma in terms of language planning and policy. They had difficulties choosing a language/s that would not only facilitate communication and therefore support various developmental efforts, but also provide the much needed unity among the many ethnic groups (Magwa 2010:54). Depending on the ideological inclination of the government, some chose to keep the status quo, that is, they maintained the colonial languages as official languages (Zimbabwe initially and Mozambique, for example), whilst others saw this as a way of regaining what was lost

35 during colonialism, for example, Tanzania. The main challenge though, was which language or languages to use as national or official language/s for the country. The table below shows the different language policies adopted by various African countries:

LANGUAGE CATEGORY NO OF COUNTRIES

1 Exclusive use of an indigenous language as 2 (3.6%) official/national medium.

2 Use of an indigenous language as official/national 8 (14.6%) with limited use of an ex-colonial language.

3 Use of an ex-colonial language as official/national 27 (49.1%) medium with symbolic use of indigenous languages.

4 Exclusive use of ex-colonial language as 18 (32.7%) official/national medium.

TOTAL 55 (100%)

Table 6: A percentage summary of language policies in Africa Source: Batibo (2005:18)

Broadly speaking, the above are the four categories that have emerged in terms of language planning and implementation in Africa. The first category consists of countries, which adopted endoglossic language policies like Libya and Egypt. With the second category, there is also the elevation of local languages to official and national languages, but the ex-colonial language is still used in some domains. Examples of this are Tanzania, where Swahili has risen to the dominant status and Ethiopia, where Amharic is the official language. These different policies are because of different attitudes towards language/s, which is often driven by different government ideologies.

2.8.1 The Malawi language situation As alluded to before, Malawi, like most African countries has been characterised by the existence of a number of languages within its linguistic ecology. At the time Malawi became a British Protectorate in 1891, the following languages had been in use at certain times and in certain areas of the country: Bemba, Bisa, Fipa, Lambya, Lomwe, Makuwa, Ndali, Ngonde, Nyakyusa, Nyanja, Nyiha, Sena, Senga, Sukuma, Sukuwa,

Swahili, Tonga, Tumbuka and Yao (Moto 2009:3). As the colonisers settled in Malawi in the late 1800s, English was declared the official language of the country and only two languages from the list above, Chinyanja and Swahili, were used to administer civil service examinations. Moto (2009) argues that Chinyanja was chosen as the lingua franca because by 1892 there was scriptural writing already available in this language.

2.8.1.1 Language planning issues in independent Malawi: The first republic The dawn of independence in Malawi in 1964 did not herald any changes in the status of the colonial language. Two indigenous languages, Chitumbuka and Chinyanja were pronounced official national languages on independence eve. The languages existed in a triglossic relationship, with English taking on the high (H) status and being the language of higher education, documentation in government, commerce and industry and for international communication. Chinyanja and Chitumbuka took on the low (L) status and were essentially languages of instruction in early education and mass communication at national level on the radio and the print media. The rest of the local languages then took on the L status in relation to Chinyanja and Chitumbuka. The Malawian languages thus existed in a triglossic relationship as shown below:

H English

H Chinyanja and Chitumbuka L

Other languages L

With its H status, English was made a requirement for every government job. Examples can be drawn from adverts from a local newspaper, The Nation, dated 18 January 1999, pages 16-20, as cited by Moto (2009):

 Fluent in English (Ability to speak and understand Tumbuka language would be an added advantage )  Fluent and proficiency in English language and story writing and editing skills in English  Malawi School Certificate of Education with passes in English… Good spoken and written English  Malawi School Certificate of Education with credits in at least 5 subjects including English.

English became a prerequisite irrespective of whether someone was going to work in a remote area where people neither used nor understood English.

Four years after independence, in 1968, Moto (2009) states that Chinyanja, now known as Chichewa was declared the national language. This was an expression of the political ideology of the then president Kamuzu Banda’s, one Malawi, one president, one party parliament, one language state. Malawi was Banda, and Banda was Malawi (Moto 2009). Chichewa was promoted at the expense of other vernacular languages, some of which were banned from the radio (Chitumbuka in Mzuba) and use as educational lingua franca (Tumbuka in the Northern Province). The censorship of Malawian indigenous languages was tantamount to depriving Malawi ethnic groups of their culture, their identity and the people resented this. One of the biggest faults of Malawi’s language policy according to Moto (2009:27) was not the declaration of a particular language as the national official language, but rather the marginalisation of the other dominant languages, degrading them by not introducing some measure, no matter how small, to recognise them as storehouses of their speakers’ total cultures and identities.

After the declaration of Chichewa as the national official language, a board was established, whose mandate was to develop the language. Efforts were made to work on the orthography, dictionary and standardisation of Chichewa, as well as coordinate the teaching of the language.

2.8.1.2 The second republic The second republic under the leadership of the United Democratic Front Party (UDF), which set in power in 1993, saw an ideological shift towards multiparty democracy. The political ideological shift was also realised in the acknowledgement and accommodation of other Malawian indigenous languages although Chichewa was maintained as the country’s national language. According to Moto (2009), the UDF 1993 manifesto which was reiterated in 1999 “… believes in a common language for Malawi centering around Chewa/Nyanja and that there are several other language dialects with corresponding merits. To deny this, is to deprive some Malawians of their natural rights and heritage.” True to their word, Chitumbuka that was banned in 1968 was re-introduced on radio in 1994. In 1996, Chiyao, Chilomwe and Chisena were introduced in the electronic media. In the same year, children’s mother tongues were

38 introduced as media of instruction from standard one to four. In 1996, Chitonga was introduced on the airwaves. What we see here is an effort at revitalisation of the indigenous languages of Malawi in terms of domain use.

The Chichewa Board, set up by former President Kamuzu Banda in 1972 was dismantled in 1995 and in its place; a centre for language studies was established. The UDF government made consultations with people actively involved in research and teaching of languages, linguists and administrators and came up with the following mandate for the centre:

a. To establish orthographic principles of the Malawian languages; b. To develop descriptive grammars for Malawian languages; c. To compile lexicons of Malawian languages; d. To promote and preserve Malawian languages; e. To teach various languages of socio-economic and political relevance to Malawi; and f. To provide translation, interpretation and editing services and to promote research language studies. (Centre for Language Studies Paper Ref No. CC/2/1/3/1 as cited by Moto 2009:56).

In contrast to Kamuzu Banda’s imposition of Chichewa hegemony on the people of Malawi, the second republic saw the importance of consultations with all stakeholders. The republic also saw the need to acknowledge the diverse languages in its ecology and preserve them.

The linguistic history of Malawi reveals diverse ideological orientations, which impacted differently on the different languages, and ultimately on the people they represent. Generally, it can be deduced that any language planning exercise that does not consult the people who will be affected by its implementation, will only result in conflict and disharmony. A language policy that neither accommodates all the languages in its ecology, nor takes into consideration the linguistic needs and aspirations of people, is doomed from the beginning.

2.8.2 The Mozambique language situation Unlike Malawi, which was colonised by Britain, Mozambique was colonised by Portugal. During the Portuguese colonial era between 1505 and 1975, Portuguese was the official language of Mozambique, used in all official domains. The Portuguese adopted an assimilationist policy and discouraged use of local languages. Nothing

39 could be printed in any African language without a Portuguese translation. In education, Portuguese was the only recognised medium of instruction. Knowledge of Portuguese was associated with high socio-economic status, was a prerequisite for upward mobility and regarded as a key to success (Magwa 2010:63). This is despite the fact that Mozambique is linguistically diverse. The table below shows Mozambique’s linguistic profile.

LANGUAGE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS PERCENTAGE OF (L1) POPULATION

EMakhuwa 4 007 010 24.8

CiSena 1 807 319 11.2

XiChangana 1 799 614 11.2

Elomwe 1 269 527 7.9

Echuwabo 1 203 494 7.5

ChiShona 1 070 471 6.6

XiTswa 763 029 4.7

XiRongwa 626 174 3.9

ChiNyanja 607 671 3.8

Portuguese 489 915 3.0

ChiNyungwe 446 567 2.8

CiCopi 405 521 2.5

CiYao 374 426 2.3

CiTonga 319 836 2.0

EKoti 102 393 0.6

KiMwani 29 980 0.2

KiSwahili 21 070 0.1

Swazi 7 742 0.05

Chisenga 3 584 0.02

Zulu 3 529 0.02

Others 405 420 2.5

TOTAL 16 135 403 100

Table 7: Mozambique's language profile Source: Magwa (2010:63)

In spite of such a rich and diverse ecosystem, the colonial government chose to consider it as non-existent. These languages were thus reserved for the low domains of society.

When Mozambique gained independence in 1975, Portuguese, and not an African language, was declared the country’s official language, thus making Mozambique an exoglossic state. According to Magwa (2010:63), it was considered the only medium of government controlled national communication in the area of administration and education and has been referred to as the symbol of national unity. The Mozambican independent government simply perpetuated the policy adopted by the Portuguese during their time of reign. For Matusse (1998:69),

Mozambique chose the linguistic colonial heritage Portuguese to shape and protect another colonial legacy… The decision was informed partly by the belief that choosing Portuguese as the official language, Mozambicans would be wrenched from the ethnic allegiances to pride in the new nation being built.

Like in many other African countries, the belief was that unity could be forged through monolingualism. There was thus a conscious move by the government to promote Portuguese in the name of unity at the expense of local languages.

Prior to the first post independent democratic elections in 1994, there was a paradigm shift towards accommodating local languages. There was a realisation that for people to actively take part in politics and developmental issues around their communities, there was need for information dissemination in a language that they fully understood and could identify with. Local languages were thus used in voter education. Thereafter, local languages were introduced as medium of instruction in lower primary education. This was mainly because there was a realisation that using Portuguese as the medium of instruction in schools could have been responsible for the high school dropout rates

41 and grade repetitions. Inroads were also made in the media whereby Radio Mozambique regionalised its transmissions and increased airtime in local languages. Up to date, however, efforts made to accommodate and develop local languages in Mozambique have not achieved much. This could be attributed to lack of political will on the government and failure by the Mozambicans to stand up and fight for their languages. They seem, according to Magwa (2010), to be content with the status quo.

The following can be deduced from the above case studies:

 Language policies are not formulated on linguistic grounds but on ideological inclinations of ruling governments  Governments promote one or two indigenous languages  Governments are not prepared to avail financial resources for the development of all the languages in their jurisdictions and therefore opt for exoglossic policies.  As language-in-education policy, emphasis is on the use of indigenous languages as medium of instruction in the lower levels of primary school, and thereafter the use of the ex-colonial language. Ironically, this means replacing the indigenous languages and perpetuating the use of the ex-colonial languages. If nothing is done to extend the use and study of African languages beyond high school level, then African languages will only remain useful in the home domain  Sometimes language policies are formulated without research on the needs of the affected communities  Language decisions are not made by language experts but by politicians. Such policies in most cases drive political rather than linguistic agendas. They appear to solve political problems but along the way create linguistic problems.

2.9 CURRENT TRENDS IN LANGUAGE PLANNING Language planning is normally thought of in terms of large-scale, usually national planning, often undertaken by governments and meant to influence, if not change, ways of speaking or literacy practices within a society. Baldauf Jr (2006:147)

Baldauf Jr (2006) alludes to the fact that traditionally, language planning has been associated with government activity. In engaging themselves in language planning, either directly or indirectly through government-authorised agencies, the aim is to push

42 forward national ideologies. Spolsky (2009: 1) proposes that language policies at the national level are driven by four common and co-existing forces:

 national (or ethnic) ideology or claims of identity;

 the role of English as a global language;

 a nation’s sociolinguistic situation; and

 an increasing interest in linguistic rights within the human and civil rights framework.

Sukumane (2000) argues that for the past four decades, planners and politicians in many African states have claimed that national unity and modernisation are some of the aims of language planning. This emphasises the first two factors put forward by Spolsky (2009). In fashioning national unity, most African states opted for monolingualism with the use of a dominant language as the official national language. On the issue of modernisation, the common pattern has been the use of a foreign language as the designated official language, to be used in education, commerce and industry, etc., depending, in most cases, on the language of their former colonisers. In Zimbabwe, English was designated as the official national language while Shona and Ndebele were the national languages (Makoni 2008, Nyika 2008, Mkangamwi 1992, Ndlovu 2013). In Malawi, English has been the official language and Portuguese in Mozambique. Therefore, this has been the trend in the post-independence era. Resisting the linguistic status quo was therefore resisting national unity and modernisation.

From a linguistic point of view, this ideology of national unity and modernisation results in unequal power relationships between or amongst languages in a particular polity. In other words, most African governments have been using the top-bottom approach to language planning in a bid to forge national ideologies, which unfortunately have not been able to accommodate linguistic needs from all the languages in their various linguistic ecologies. Most language policies have failed to embrace Spolsky’s (2009) other two factors, i.e. considering a nation’s sociolinguistic situation and an increasing interest in linguistic rights within the human and civil rights framework. Conceptualisation of language planning is done at government level, agency is retained at the top, the governments have the power and authority and they make language decisions for various language speakers in their respective polities. The low

43 levels are only there to implement what has been planned at the top levels. This scenario has resulted in linguistic conflicts.

However, over the past decade language planning has taken on a more critical edge and its ecological context has been given greater emphasis, leading to an increasing acceptance that language planning can (and does) occur at different levels, i.e. the macro, meso, micro levels (Baldauf Jr 2006).

Bottom-up approaches to language planning are defined as alternatives to top-down approaches to language planning. They are also referred to as local context planning, bottom-to-top language planning, micro level language planning, community-based language planning, grassroots planning or initiatives, democratic language planning, language planning from below and non-governmental language planning (Ndlovu 2013:54). The bottom-up approach is a response to community language needs, problems and requirements, which are often not met by macro language planning. These local needs are often left out because in macro language planning, it is often assumed that planning is done by a team of disinterested planners who investigate the linguistic, social, political and educational requirements and make decisions that are in the best interest of the state (Baldauf Jr 2006). More often than not, there is a mismatch between state interests and ideologies versus community language interests and ideologies. In such a case, communities rise and resist the implementation of macro language policies and try to come up with their own. In other cases, language planning at macro level can accommodate the needs of communities on paper, leaving them with no implementation strategy. In this case, the communities can once again take the initiative to ensure that whatever policies are made at macro level are implemented in their communities. In other words, bottom-up insurgencies in both cases are motivated according to Batibo (2005), not only by the wish to preserve indigenous languages and cultures, but also to sensitize the authorities to recognise and appreciate the linguistic and cultural diversities of their respective polities.

From the paragraph above, two perspectives to the bottom-up approach can be identified, which are as follows:

 Where macro language policies exclude community languages

 Where community languages are accommodated in the macro policy but there is incongruence between policy and practice.

In the first instance where macro language policies exclude community languages, it means these languages and consequently their speakers are usurped of their power, those languages that are accommodated in the macro policies dominate them. From the macro language planning point of view, such community or minority languages are non-existent and such a status quo results in social injustice. The onus thus rests upon the communities themselves to fight for their languages, redress the injustices and claim back their power. The community therefore has to create a space that would make them visible. Micro level language planning therefore requires that the concerned communities cautiously look at specific contexts of need. In this way, the communities themselves initiate issues of language planning that affect them in a bid to change existing macro policies. The initiatives can be directed towards different contexts, for example, in education, business, law, parliament, public sector services, to name a few.

In the second instance where existing policies accommodate minority languages but there is incongruence between policy and practice, the community members’ responsibility is to ensure the implementation of the policies. Sometimes governments make policies that are inclusive of minority languages on paper but do not provide the resources for the implementation of the policies. A case in point is the government of Zimbabwe. The Secretary’s Education Circular of 2002, indicated that from January 2002 Kalanga, Tonga, Venda, Nambya, Sotho (minority languages) would be assisted to advance to a grade per year until they can be taught and examined at Grade 7. However, up until today, only Tonga was first examined at Grade 7 in 2011 due to the efforts and will of the Tonga people. All the other minority languages cannot be taught and examined at Grade 7 due to lack of human and material resources. In 2006, the following amendment was made to Section 62 of the Education Act of 1997:

Subject to this section, all the three main languages of Zimbabwe, namely Shona, Ndebele and English, shall be taught on an equal-time basis in all schools up to Form Two level.

2) In areas where indigenous languages other than those mentioned in subsection (1) are spoken, the Minister may authorise the teaching of such languages in schools in addition to those specified in subsection (1).

The various ministers who have taken office since the enactment of this act however found it difficult to authorise the teaching of minority languages once again due to lack of both human and material resources. The government has not been proactive in providing the needed resources. According to the new Constitution of Zimbabwe adopted in 2013,

(3) The State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level must—

(a) Ensure that all officially recognised languages are treated equitably; and

(b) Take into account the language preferences of people affected by governmental measures or communications.

The constitution however, does not go on to recommend ways of making sure that this is put into practice. As a result, languages in the Zimbabwean linguistic ecology are not treated equitably, neither are minority language speakers’ language preferences taken into consideration. Minority languages still take peripheral roles in education where, from a language planning point of view, their acquisition and currency would have been enhanced. It is in such instances that the minority languages speakers should take a stance, be involved and call the government to task so that whatever policies come from the top are implemented in communities. The responsibility would also fall upon communities to ensure that whatever strategies they use to enforce these policies are sustainable.

As alluded to earlier, bottom-up approaches are community driven. This means that there is a need for the community at large to realise that they are being marginalised when their languages are being excluded from macro policies, or when macro policies cannot be utilised to meet their needs and ideologies as communities. They have to take charge of the reverse process by pledging support, awareness campaigns and lobbying. The community must also select bodies or committees to act on their behalf. A good working and collaborative relationship that involves even the local, traditional and political leadership, as well as the macro and meso level agents of language change needs to be developed (Ndlovu 2013). Lobbying all community members to speak with one voice is crucial to avoid situations where there will be lack of support from the very people those language policies and implementation plans are aimed at (Beukes 2009). A case in point is what happened late in 2015 at the University of

Stellenbosch and Elsenburg Agricultural Training Institute in South Africa. The Afrikaans community standing with one voice wanted to maintain the use of Afrikaans as a language of teaching and learning for them. From a language planning point of view, this ensures the continuity of intergenerational language transmission and the currency of the language. The black South African students on the other hand wanted the use of Afrikaans as a teaching and learning tool scrapped, and in its place, English only. This shows lack of ideological consensus at grass-root or community level, aimed at ensuring that indigenous languages also gain space in higher spheres. This was a chance for students to fight for the inclusion of indigenous languages in higher education as part of linguistic transformation and promotion of linguistic equity in South Africa, an issue that is clear in the South African constitution.

A different approach to bottom-up language planning initiative is whereby government gives power to communities to initiate linguistic transformation from the grass-roots level. Although this is government sanctioned, the onus is upon communities to decide on the linguistic needs of their communities. This, according to Webb (2009), is a political dispensation, which is committed to establishing a liberal democracy, diversity and the recognition of minority rights. An example of such an approach was initiated in South Africa by the Department of Provincial and Local Government (dplg) in a project titled Multilingualism in local government. The objectives of the project according to the Department of Provincial and Local Government (2008a) are as follows:

 To provide more effective service delivery through increasing the impact and effects of language in speeding up service delivery  To empower the local community and to support local development through mainstreaming multilingualism, and  To deepen community participation and empowerment through the promotion of the use of local languages in official functions and domains.

From the above objectives, one can deduce the fact that the project is community- oriented and that it revolves around the issue of language as a crucial factor in community development, thus aligning with Ruiz’s (1984) language as a resource orientation.

As alluded to by Webb (2009), this South African dplg project was conceived essentially in top-down terms but with the objectives that are directed at effecting

47 community participation and involvement in the project. In other words, this can only work as bottom-up under certain conditions. To begin with, the commissioning body, which in the case of South Africa, dplg, need to give all power and authority to communities so that they initiate language development projects that support community oriented needs. The commissioning body as part of government will be there to support and not to interfere. Their links with minority language communities are crucial since community initiatives in terms of language development must be supported by enforced regulations where necessary (Webb 2009). Language issues ultimately need to be legalised and this would be easier if communities and governments work together. It is therefore crucial that when commissioning bodies cede powers to initiate community based language projects, they do it genuinely.

At the policy implementation agents level is the community. This level is the core of the project. Communities should not only be consulted or informed of decisions, but have to take the initiative and be involved. Policy decisions should reflect the interests of communities. This would make the implementation easier since communities as policy implementation agents will not have problems implementing what they claim ownership of (Webb 2009).

For governments that are serious about the development and or maintenance of their respective linguistic ecologies, this approach could be viable. This could also help prevent the natural death or otherwise of languages and cultures in instances where communities are not fully equipped to develop their own languages. This approach, if adopted by governments, would reduce ethnic fights and discontentment and create conditions conducive for the peaceful core existence of languages, ethnic groups within polities, conditions that are also good for national unity and development.

2.10 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In a nation with more than one language, it is often true that one is clearly dominant over the others – indication of dominance is numerical superiority, the extent to which a given language is learned by native speakers of other languages, use of language for national uses such as publication of official texts of law, medium of instruction in school etc. (Huebner (ed.) 1996).

The above characterises the linguistic situation in Zimbabwe. Such a linguistic landscape points to the need for government to adopt an applicable language policy

48 which takes into cognisance the diversity and interrelationships amongst languages in its environment, and to engage in language planning to manage Zimbabwe’s linguistic diversity. This should be sensitive to the idea that each language is unique and important in its own way and can thus be viewed as a resource. Indigenous languages play critical roles in culture, economics and politics (Makanda 2011: i). The current study is thus grounded within the framework of language policy and planning, with a strong ecological approach to language planning. Traditionally, language policy and planning is an activity of government and government agents who normally come from the perspective that monolingualism is desirable for economic growth and that minority rights are a threat to the nation state, that is, national unity and territorial integrity

(Phillipson et.al 1995). Makanda (2011) argues that it is in the allocation of function and status that indigenous languages mainly face their ‘death’ as they remain relegated to languages of informal business transactions. It is thus expected that policies coming from the top will not be sensitive to issues raised from the grassroots.

The ecological approach to language planning therefore will find it difficult to work from the top, hence the adoption of bottom-up approaches to language planning. Ricento

(2006) acknowledges the principle that people who experience the consequences of language policy should have a major role in making policy decisions. It is therefore against this premise that the present study is utilising theoretical frameworks, which take cognisance of the importance of language speakers themselves in driving initiatives for the revitalisation and development of their own languages. A single theory could not be used to analyse all the data gathered for this research. A multi- dimensional theoretical base made up of the following; UNESCO’s (2003) Nine

Factors, Fishman’s (1991) Reversing Language Shift and Lewis and Simmons’s

(2010) Extended Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale, is therefore going to be used for this research.

2.10.1 Fishman’s (1991) Reversing Language Shift (RLS) Reversing Language Shift (RLS) according to Fishman (1991) constitutes that corner of the total field of status planning that is devoted to improving the sociolinguistic circumstances of languages that suffer from a negative balance of users. Since the motive of RLS is corrective or solution based in nature, it should have specific goals that are achievable. Fishman (1991) also alludes to the fact that RLS is normally an activity of minority language communities, which is done outside the normal formal institutions. In other words, this is an initiative from the grassroots, from people who are directly affected by the status of their languages; hence, it provides an alternative planning theory, which is not an initiative of either the government or language planning institutes. Fishman’s (1991) RLS theory proposes a model called the Graded

Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) indicated below. As a corrective measure, the RLS theory proposes activities that would allow for the perpetuation of intergenerational language transmission. In the GIDS, the endangered language is referred to as X or Xish and its speakers as Xmen. The dominant language, which exerts pressure and threat to the endangered language, is referred to as Y or Yish and its speakers as Ymen. XSL refers to the learning of the endangered language as a second language. Of the stages involved, the higher numbers indicate greater disruption or threat to intergenerational language transmission. See table 16 below as cited by Fishman (1991:395).

Stages of Reversing Language Shift: Severity of intergenerational dislocation (read from bottom up)

1. Education, work sphere, mass media and governmental operations at higher and national levels

2. Local/regional mass media and governmental services

3. Local/regional (i.e. non-neighbourhood) work sphere, both among Xmen and among Ymen

4b. Public schools for Xish children, offering some instruction via Xish, but substantially under Yish curricular and staffing control

4a. Schools in lieu of compulsory education and substantially under Xish curricular and staffing control

II. RLS to transcend diglossia, subsequent to its attainment

5.Schools for literacy acquisition, for the old and for the young, and not in lieu of compulsory education

6.The intergenerational and demographically concentrated home-family- neighbourhood: the basis of mother tongue transmission

7. Cultural interaction in Xish primarily involving the community-based older generation

8. Restructuring Xish and adult acquisition of XSL

1. RLS to attain diglossia (assuming prior ideological clarification)

Table 8: Towards a theory of Reversing Language Shift Source: Fishman (1991:395)

As seen from the GIDS table, there are graded priorities. This notion of graded is crucial for Fishman in two ways:

The virtue of more parsimoniously and forcefully directing attention to crucial issues or ‘first things first’, and he virtue of constantly directing attention to the absolutely crucial questions of the link to intergenerational continuity. The first virtue is a significant one because RLS, like all minority-based efforts is more likely to be characterised by a serious shortage of resources. The second virtue constitutes a reminder that RLS must not be carried away by the most fashionable technologies or the most glamorous that are so very much ‘in the public eye’. When all is said and done, any and all seriously intended RLS effort must still stand the acid test of fostering demonstrable transmissibility across the intergenerational link (Fishman 1991:111-113).

Fishman (1991) categorised the stages into 2, stages 8 to 5 indicate RLS on the ‘weak side’ and stages 4 to 1 indicate RLS on the ‘strong side’.

2.10.1.1 Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) Stage 8: most vestigial users of Xish are socially isolated old folks and Xish needs to be re-assembled from their mouths and memories and taught to demographically unconcentrated adults (Fishman 1991:88).

At this stage, the remaining users of the language are very few, old and find it very difficult to use Xish in conversations because the younger generations would have assimilated to the Yish language. These last survivors normally live in remote areas and are isolated. The mandate for pro-RLS advocates at this stage is to look for the survivors so that they can record what they can from them.

Stage 7: most users of Xish are socially integrated and ethnolinguistically active population but they are beyond childbearing age (Fishman 1991:89).

At this stage, the old generation of Xish speakers are many and they are found within the communities. However, their children, grandchildren and neighbours speak Yish.

Being beyond childbearing age, they can no longer contribute to the number of Xish users demographically although they can still contribute to the number of such speakers sociologically, that is, by social action (Fishman 1991:91). The major goal of

RLS effort at this stage is to harness this old folk resource in the promotion of the use of Xish with the young generations (those of childbearing age) and the youths. Since the young generations and the youths are already Ymen, this means they will learn and use Xish as a second language. Fishman (1991) stresses the fact that the road to societal death is paved by language activity that is not focused on intergenerational

52 continuity, that is, activity that is diverted into efforts that do not involve and influence the socialisation behaviours of families of childbearing age.

Stage 6: the attainment of intergenerational informal oralcy and its demographic concentration and institutional reinforcement (Fishman 1991:92)

The family, at this stage is the focus of RLS activities. Instead of being a language of linguistically isolated families, Xish must also become the language of interfamily interaction, language of interaction with playmates, neighbours, friends and acquaintances (p. 103). Once the use of Xish is established within interfamily discourse, then its use spreads to communities and community based institutions and activities running through all generations. It should be noted that the use of Xish at this stage is concentrated on the informal daily life of the speech communities whereas

Yish is reserved for formal domains. According to Fishman (1991), Stage 6 is the crucial stage for Xish because the home family, neighbourhood community complex is the normal “whole” of childhood life and of intergenerational mother-tongue transmission and must remain the centre of RLS effort. The main vehicle for intergenerational continuity is oral transmission.

Stage 5: Xish literacy in home, school and community, but without taking an extra-communal reinforcement of such literacy (Fishman 1991:95)

Since Stage 6 is primarily concerned with intergenerational continuity of Xish through oralcy, Stage 5 takes a step further and is pre-occupied with converting the oral form of Xish into literary form. Literacy in any language has its advantages. As Fishman

(1991) puts it, literacy facilitates inter-individual, inter-network and inter-communal communication and goal attainment and, therefore, also the attainment of RLS goals,

53 particularly so when Xish-speaking families are not overwhelmingly clustered into communities

Like in Stage 6, RLS advocates for the use of literacy in informal domains. In this way, the Xish community remains in control of Xish literacy and can make independent decisions in as far as its acquisition and domain use is concerned.

Stage 4: Xish in lower education (types a and b) that meets the requirements of compulsory education laws (Fishman 1991:98)

Stage 5 is primarily concerned with the introduction of literacy in Xish in the informal community domains. Stage 4 now introduces the already literate Xish into the lower levels of elementary school. Fishman (1991) introduces two types of schools. The type

4b schools are funded by governments and only allow Xish to be used as co-medium of instruction together with Yish in schools that are primarily for Xish speakers. Type

4a schools on the other hand are:

… not under the control of government, which mostly comprise of Ymen. It is rather under the control of Xish community and may be more closely linked with other Xish community institutions that also foster Xmen-via-Xish vision (such as local religious units, Xish youth clubs, X-sport teams etc). Schools of type 4a call upon parental support involvement and commitment, thereby creating and strengthening that most elusive and vital of all RLS assets: community. Fishman (1991:101)

Stage 3: Use of Xish in the lower work sphere (outside of Xish neighbourhood/community) involving interaction between Xmen and Ymen

(Fishman 1991:103)

At this stage, Xish should permeate the lower work sphere outside Xish communities.

It does that through providing Xish- controlled enterprises and services that seek to satisfy the needs of the Yish market. The main concern for RLS at this stage is to

54 create some space and make Xish visible by using it as the language of business for the services provided by Xmen. Equally important should be the insistence by Xmen on the use of Xish by Ymen in doing business with Xmen. For Fishman (1991:104),

“service should be in the language preferred by those served” is a general RLS principle at this stage (akin to the American slogan that the customer is always right), and, accordingly, not only local Yish businesses serving Xish communities but even local government or quasi-governmental offices (banks, post offices, health clinics etc.) can sometimes be influenced to move in this direction. It should be noted that attaining this stage is not an easy task considering the fact that this domain is in most cases controlled by Ymen who wield power politically, economically and linguistically.

Stage 2: Xish in lower governmental services and mass media but not in the higher spheres of either (Fishman 1991:105)

Stage 2 is pre-occupied with Xish use in lower governmental services and the mass media. These are areas that are normally under Yish control. Successful penetration of Xish into these domains is difficult since it involves Xish taking on the government, which, according to Fishman (1990) is hardly the most likely, or the most sympathetic auspices for minority RLS efforts. Fishman (1991:104) therefore recommends that government agencies and services in Xish neighbourhoods should be argued to operate bilingually in Yish and Xish, using whatever language is preferred by the citizens whom they are serving. National radio and television too should be asked to provide a certain number of hours of Xish programming. This means Xish is getting out of its local community shell and finding space to establish itself within the broad national sphere. The success of this stage lies in the prior successful implementation of Xish in other domains outside the Xish communities; domains like education (Stage

4), lower work sphere (Stage 3).

Stage1: some use of Xish in higher level educational, occupational, governmental and media efforts (but without the additional safety provided by political independence)

RLS advocates at this stage are concerned with the use of Xish in higher level educational, occupational, governmental and media efforts. The aim is to bring Xish at parity with Yish in terms of functional status. Stage 1 according to Fishman (1991) represents the arrival of the pursuit of cultural autonomy for those who have pursued the vision of Xmen-via-Xish

The Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale is vital in language planning efforts because it does not only help pro-RLS advocates assess the status of languages but also suggests ways of reversing language shift. Fishman (2001:450) makes it clear that his RLS-perspective combines a more distanced academic study with a perspective of intervention and the chance of the most appropriate means of protecting minority languages. The GIDS is, however, not a stage-by-stage prescription of what needs to be done. RLS efforts can start from any stage, which is deemed critical and therefore needs to be looked at first. As already alluded to, RLS is primarily an activity of minority language speakers and their advocates. For their efforts to be successful,

Fishman (1991) highlights three principle notions that they have to take into consideration. Firstly, RLS-effort must initially be primarily based on the self-reliance of pro-RLSers and on the community of Xish users and advocates whom pro-RLSers seek to mobilise and to activate. RLSers and the Xish communities must be self-reliant in terms of, among other things, time, finance and dedication. This is important in that most governments look at multilingualism as a problem and therefore lack the political will to develop minority languages, which they look at as problem languages. Xish

56 community dedication is also crucial particularly in stages 8 to 4 since the success of these stages require effort and will from the Xish communities themselves.

In addition to initial Xmen self-reliance, another basic prerequisite for RLS success is that of the proper sequencing of efforts (Fishman 1991). This calls for the objective analysis of Xish status and assigning of appropriate resources and effort to critical issues first to avoid frustrations, failures and wastage of the already scarce resources, which characterise most Xish communities. Fishman (1991: 113) has the following to say about wrong decisions on sequencing of effort:

The sociolinguistic landscape is littered with the relatively lifeless remains of societally marginalised and exhausted RLS movements that have engaged in struggles on the wrong front (or on all eight fronts simultaneously) without real awareness of what they were doing or of the problems that faced them.

Finally, there is a need to ponder the inter-stage connections in RLS- efforts, particularly the feedback between the stages above 4b and those below it (Ibid).

Activities at each stage should contribute to intergenerational mother tongue transmission. Stages 8 to 5 are directly linked to intergenerational Xish transmission and act as the foundation whereas Stages 4b to 1 seek to consolidate and preserve the foundations already laid down by extending Xish sphere of influence to outside formal domains so that language use in domains outside Xish communities becomes an extension of Xish use within the Xish communities. In this way, the use of Xish becomes a way of life, with no domain restrictions. Over all, Fishman’s GIDS focus on three aspects, language domains, literacy and intergenerational language transmission, with intergenerational language transmission being the central point upon which every other effort should be linked.

2.10.2 UNESCO’s (2003) “Nine Factors” In 2003, UNESCO’s Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered languages came up with a set of determining factors that can be used to assess the vitality of a language. The group came up with nine factors and the basis for these factors is Fishman’s (1991)

Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS). Six factors evaluate a language’s vitality and state of endangerment; two further factors assess language attitudes and one additional factor to evaluate the urgency of documentation (Dwyer 2011). These factors are briefly discussed below:

Factor 1: Intergenerational Language Transmission

According to Fishman (1991), the vitality of a language is most commonly measured by assessing whether it is being transmitted from one generation to another. Degrees of endangerment vary and UNESCO (2003) identified six varying degrees concerning this factor, which are listed below.

Safe (5): The language is spoken by all generations. There is no sign of linguistic threat from any other language, and the intergenerational transmission of the language seems uninterrupted.

Stable yet threatened (5- ): The language is spoken in most contexts by all generations with unbroken intergenerational transmission, yet multilingualism in the native language and one or more dominant language(s) has usurped certain important communication contexts. Note that multilingualism alone is not necessarily a threat to languages.

Unsafe (4): Most but not all children or families of a particular community speak their language as their first language, but it may be restricted to specific social domains

(such as at home where children interact with their parents and grandparents).

Definitively endangered (3): The language is no longer being learned as the mother tongue by children in the home. The youngest speakers are thus of the parental generation. At this stage, parents may still speak their language to their children, but their children do not typically respond in the language.

Severely endangered (2): The language is spoken only by grandparents and older generations; while the parent generation may still understand the language, they typically do not speak it to their children.

Critically endangered (1): The youngest speakers are in the great-grandparental generation, and the language is not used for everyday interactions. These older people often remember only part of the language but do not use it, since there may not be anyone to speak with.

Extinct (0): There is no one who can speak or remember the language.

The table below gives a summary of UNESCO’s Factor 1.

Degree of Endangerment Grade Speaker Population

safe 5 The language is used by all ages, from children up.

unsafe 4 Some children in all domains use the language; all children in limited domains use it.

definitively endangered 3 The language is used mostly by the parental generation and up.

severely endangered 2 The language is used mostly by the grandparental generation and up.

critically endangered 1 The language is used mostly by very few speakers, of great- grandparental generation.

extinct 0 There exists no speaker.

Table 9: UNESCO Factor 1: Intergenerational language transmission. Source: UNESCO (2003:7-8)

Factor 2: Absolute number of speakers

The absolute number of speakers for any language plays a crucial role in language vitality. The greater the number of absolute speakers the greater chances of survival, the lesser the number of absolute speakers, the more chances of attrition. However, as has been already indicated, these factors cannot be used individually since other factors, macro or micro also come into play.

Factor 3: Proportion of speakers within the total population

UNESCO (2003) gives the following scale to appraise degrees of endangerment with regards to this factor.

Degree of Endangerment Grade Proportion of Speakers Within the Total Reference Population

safe 5 All speak the language.

unsafe 4 Nearly all speak the language.

definitively endangered 3 A majority speak the language.

severely endangered 2 A minority speak the language.

critically endangered 1 Very few speak the language.

extinct 0 None speaks the language.

Table 10: UNESCO Factor 3: Proportion of speakers within the total population. Source: UNESCO (2003:9)

Factor 4: Trends in existing language domains

The context within which a language is used determines the number and ages of speakers and as a result affects its vitality. It is important that a language serve in all domains so that it is passed on from one generation to the next. The different domains are shown in the table below.

Degree of Endangerment Grade Domains and Functions

universal use 5 The language is used in all domains and for all functions

multilingual parity 4 Two or more languages may be used in most social domains and for most functions.

dwindling domains 3 The language is in home domains and for many functions, but the dominant language begins to penetrate even home domains.

limited or formal domains 2 The language is used in limited social domains and for several functions

highly limited domains 1 The language is used only in very restricted domains and for a very few functions

extinct 0 The language is not used in any domain and for any function.

Table 11: UNESCO Factor 4: Trends in existing language domains Source: UNESCO (2003:10)

Universal use (5): The language of the ethnolinguistic group is the language of interaction, identity, thinking, creativity, and entertainment, and is actively used in all discourse domains for all purposes (UNESCO 2003).

Multilingual parity (5): Multilingualism is a common phenomenon in the world and

Africa in particular. Where more than one language exists in a speech community, there usually is a dominant language/s, which is used in most official domains like education, government and commerce and industry. The ethnolinguistic language on the other hand is used in informal contexts and thus the languages exist in a diglossic situation. This means the languages in such a linguistic ecology serve different roles and each is safe in the context in which it is reserved for.

Dwindling domains (3): At this level, the scale is tilting towards the use of the dominant language even in the areas once reserved for the non-dominant languages.

This means young generations are now learning the dominant languages from home.

Limited or formal domains (2): The non-dominant language is only spoken by the elderly and now be used only in domains where the elderly are involved like traditional gatherings for rituals, festivals and in the home.

Highly limited domain (1): At this stage, the non-dominant language is only used by a few individuals in very restricted domains like rituals. The young generation does not understand the language, even people of childbearing age.

Extinct (0): The non-dominant language is not spoken at all in the speech community.

The dominant language has virtually taken over and is now used by everybody, all generations in all domains of life.

Factor 5: Response to new domains and media

If the communities do not meet the challenges of modernity with their language, it becomes increasingly irrelevant and stigmatized (UNESCO 2003:11). New domains are usually a preserve of the dominant languages and as they venture into these new domains, their status also increases at the expense of the non-dominant languages.

It is therefore crucial that non-dominant languages expand their domain use. As they venture into these new domains, the languages should not be used only in the periphery, but should be explicitly visible. Below, is a summary of Factor 5.

Degree of Grade New Domains and Media Accepted by the Endangerment Endangered Language

dynamic 5 The language is used in all new domains.

robust/active 4 The language is used in most new domains.

receptive 3 The language is used in many domains.

coping 2 The language is used in some new domains.

minimal 1 The language is used only in a few new domains.

inactive 0 The language is not used in any new domains.

Table 82: UNESCO Factor 5: Response to new domains and media Source: UNESCO (2003)

Factor 6: Materials for Language Education and Literacy

The availability of written materials in any language enhances its status. It is written languages only that can be used in the education sector, either as medium of

63 instruction or is taught as subjects. Languages used in the education domain more often than not end up as languages of communication in other official domains such as law, government, commerce and industry. Due to their use in such important domains, their prestige increases and they are associated with socio-economic status.

Factor 6 is explained in the table below.

Grade Accessibility of Written Materials

5 There is an established orthography, literacy tradition with grammars, dictionaries, texts, literature, and everyday media. Writing in the language is used in administration and education.

4 Written materials exist, and at school, children are developing literacy in the language. Writing in the language is not used in administration.

3 Written materials exist and children may be exposed to the written form at school. Literacy is not promoted through print media.

2 Written materials exist, but they may only be useful for some members of the community; and for others, they may have a symbolic significance. Literacy education in the language is not a part of the school curriculum.

1 A practical orthography is known to the community and some material is being written.

0 No orthography available to the community.

Table 93: Factor 6: Materials for Language Education and Literacy. Source: UNESCO (2003:12)

Factors 7 and 8 focus on the attitudes and policies at the local, regional and national level towards non-dominant language.

Factor 7: Government and Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies, including Official Status and Use

Equal support (5): All of a country’s languages are valued as assets. All languages are protected by law, and the government encourages the maintenance of all languages by implementing explicit policies.

Differentiated support (4): Non-dominant languages are explicitly protected by the government, but there are clear differences in the contexts in which the dominant/official language(s) and non-dominant (protected) language(s) are used.

The government encourages ethnolinguistic groups to maintain and use their languages, most often in private domains (as the home language), rather than in public domains (e.g. in schools). Some of the domains of non-dominant language use enjoy high prestige (e.g. at ceremonial occasions).

Passive assimilation (3): The dominant group is indifferent as to whether or not minority languages are spoken, as long as the dominant group’s language is the language of interaction. Though this is not an explicit language policy, the dominant group’s language is the de facto official language. Most domains of non-dominant language use do not enjoy high prestige.

Active assimilation (2): The government encourages minority groups to abandon their own languages by providing education for the minority group members in the dominant language. Speaking and/or writing in non-dominant languages is not encouraged.

Forced assimilation (1): The government has an explicit language policy declaring the dominant group’s language to be the only official national language, while the languages of subordinate groups are neither recognized nor supported.

Prohibition (0): Minority languages are prohibited from use in any domain. Languages may be tolerated in private domains (UNESCO 2003:13-14). The table below summarises Factor 7.

Degree of Support Grade Official Attitudes toward Language

equal support 5 All languages are protected.

differentiated support 4 Minority languages are protected primarily as the language of the private domains. The use of the language is prestigious.

passive assimilation 3 No explicit policy exists for minority languages; the dominant language prevails in the public domain.

active assimilation 2 Government encourages assimilation to the dominant language. There is no protection for minority languages.

forced assimilation 1 The dominant language is the sole official language, while non-dominant languages are neither recognized nor protected.

prohibition 0 Minority languages are prohibited.

Table 104: Factor 7: Government and Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies, including Official Status and Use. Source: UNESCO (2003:14)

Factor 8: Community members’ attitudes towards their own language

Members of a speech community are not usually neutral towards their own language

(UNESCO 2003:14). The attitude that they adopt towards their language is normally a result of the value that they attach to it and the possibility of the advantages associated with using it. When people’s attitude towards their language is positive, they would not want to abandon it and maintenance and promotion of the language becomes a priority. On the other hand, if they view their language as inferior and of no value,

66 people would assimilate into the superior or more prestigious group, thereby abandoning their own language. Normally the language would eventually die a natural death. It should also be noted that sometimes the attitudes that people adopt towards their languages are as a result of language policies in their countries. These policies may value one language over others, or put all languages in a particular polity at parity.

However, whatever the speech community chooses, either positive or negative attitude, has effects on the vitality of their languages.

Grade Community Members’ Attitudes toward Language

5 All members value their language and wish to see it promoted.

4 Most members support language maintenance.

3 Many members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss.

2 Some members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss.

1 Only a few members support language maintenance, others are indifferent or may even support language loss.

0 No one cares if the language is lost; all prefer to use a dominant language.

Table 115: UNESCO Factor 8: Community members' attitudes towards their own language. Source: UNESCO (2003:16)

Factor 9: Amount and Quality of documentation

Factor 9 assesses the urgency for documenting a language since language documentation is crucial for the survival and promotion of any language.

Documentation Grade Language Documentation

superlative 5 There are comprehensive grammars and dictionaries, extensive texts; constant flow of language materials. Abundant annotated high-quality audio and video recordings exist.

good 4 There are one good grammar and a number of adequate grammars, dictionaries, texts, literature, and occasionally updated everyday media; adequate annotated high- quality audio and video recordings.

fair 3 There may be an adequate grammar or sufficient amount of grammars, dictionaries, and texts, but no everyday media; audio and video recordings may exist in varying quality or degree of annotation.

fragmentary 2 There are some grammatical sketches, word-lists, and texts useful for limited linguistic research but with inadequate coverage. Audio and video recordings may exist in varying quality, with or without any annotation.

inadequate 1 Only a few grammatical sketches, short word-lists, and fragmentary texts. Audio and video recordings do not exist, are of unusable quality, or are completely un- annotated.

Undocumented 0 No material exists

Table 1612: UNESCO Factor 9: Amount and Quality of documentation. Source: UNESCO (2003)

2.10.3 Lewis & Simons 2010 Extended Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) Lewis and Simons (2010) extended Fishman’s GIDS from eight to 10 levels. Whereas

Fishman’s GIDS uses three factors to evaluate a language (language domains, literacy and intergenerational language transmission), EGIDS uses five factors. In addition to language domains, literacy and intergenerational language transmission,

EGIDS proposes identity function and vehicularity, which Lewis and Simons refer to as symbolic proficiency extending to level 9 and 10 as shown on the table below.

EGIDS EGIDS LABEL EGIDS DESCRIPTION LEVEL

0 International The language is used internationally for a broad range of functions.

1 National The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government at the nationwide level.

2 Regional The language is used for local and regional mass media and governmental services.

3 Trade The language is used for local and regional work by both insiders and outsiders.

4 Education Literacy in the language is being transmitted through a system of public education.

5 Written The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written form in parts of the community.

6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language.

6b Threatened The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the childbearing generation are transmitting it to their children.

7 Shifting The childbearing generation knows the language well enough to use it among themselves but none is transmitting it to their children.

8a Moribund The only remaining language speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.

8b Nearly extinct The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation or older who have little opportunity to use the language.

9 Dormant The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community. No one has more than symbolic proficiency.

10 Extinct No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated with the language, even for symbolic purposes.

Table 13: Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale. Source: Dwyer (2011) EGIDS according to Dwyer (2011) focuses heavily on existing language domains and intergenerational transmission and provides more nuanced descriptors between levels.

2.11 CONCLUSION In this chapter, literature on language policy and planning and the various language planning orientations and language policy types were reviewed. Language planning in the general African context was also reviewed, with particular mention of two African countries, Malawi and Mozambique. Malawi was chosen because it was colonised by the British just like Zimbabwe. Mozambique was colonised by the Portuguese. Its inclusion in the literature review is therefore for the purposes of comparison. A theoretical framework that informs the study was also articulated.

CHAPTER THREE

LINGUISTIC HISTORY OF ZIMBABWE

3.1 LINGUISTIC SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE As indicated in chapter one, Zimbabwe is a multilingual country consisting of the following 16 sixteen officially recognized languages enshrined in The Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013): Chewa, Chibarwe, English, Kalanga, Koisan, Nambya, Ndau, Ndebele, Shangani, Shona, Sign language, Sotho, Tswana, Tonga, Venda and Xhosa. Of the 16 languages, English is an exoglossic language whilst the rest are endoglossic languages. The Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) also states that all the state institutions and agencies of government at all levels must ensure that all officially recognized languages are treated equitably. At the time of writing, three years after the constitution amendment of 2013, nothing that resembles the implementation of this provision into practice has been witnessed, yet. The following map shows the language distribution in this country.

Figure 2: Language Distribution of Zimbabwe Source: Ethnologue 2012

Prior to the 2013 constitutional amendment, the Zimbabwe linguistic ecology consisted of three official languages which were:

 English, which was inherited from colonialism,  Ndebele, which is spoken in Matabeleland North, South and Central Provinces  Shona, which is spoken in the remaining provinces of the country.

In addition to the above three languages, there are also minority languages scattered especially along its boarders (see fig 2). Generally, minority languages are defined as languages spoken by a minority of population in a given polity. May (2012) however points out that the distinction between minority and majority languages is not only based on numerical size, but on clearly observable differences in relation to power, status and entitlement. This is the definition that would be utilized in this study. Prior to the 2013 constitutional amendment, there were 14 communal (minority) languages in Zimbabwe. Out of the 14, only six were officially recognized: Venda, Tonga, Shangani, Chewa, Nambya and Kalanga (Hachipola 1998). All these minority

72 languages were either Shona or Ndebele dominated depending on their geographical location.

What is noteworthy in the current constitution is the omission or silence on the status of the recognized languages as either official languages or national languages. The constitution is also not clear on functional distribution. Currently patterns of language use point to a stratification of the languages spoken in Zimbabwe. Right at the top is the exoglossic language English. Although it started as a minority language spoken by a small group of colonizers approximating 1% of the Zimbabwe population in the late 19th century, it has developed to become the country’s most powerful and most important language (Chabata 2008:14). It is the language of instruction in schools, the dominant one on the country’s radio stations and on national television, the language of the national press, as well as both central and local government, the language of international trade and commerce (Chabata 2008). In other words, without English, it is difficult, if not impossible for Zimbabwean citizens to go up both the education and economic ladder. The language has become the ladder for upward mobility, educationally, socially and economically. For all professional training, a pass in English at Ordinary level is a requirement. In fact, an Ordinary Level certificate is only considered a full certificate if it has at least five passed subjects including a pass in the English language (Makanda 2011). English therefore holds the High (H) status in Zimbabwe and has assumed what Bourdieu (1991) calls symbolic and material power.

Second on the strata are two endoglossic languages, Shona and Ndebele. These two languages are distributed geographically across the 10 provinces of the country as indicated below.

PROVINCE PREDOMINANT LANGUAGE

Mashonaland Central Shona

Mashonaland South Shona

Mashonaland North Shona

Mashonaland East Shona

Mashonaland West Shona

Masvingo Shona

Manicaland Shona

Midlands Shona/Ndebele

Matabeleland North Ndebele

Matabeleland South Ndebele

Matabeleland Central Ndebele

Table 14: Shona and Ndebele geographical distribution These two languages have been elevated above other endoglossic languages to such an extent that all other endoglossic languages are either Shona or Ndebele dominated depending on their geographical location. According to Nyika (2008:123), the general perception in Zimbabwe is that the country can be divided into two blocks, Ndebele and Shona speaking areas as shown in the table above, a situation that demonstrates the entrenchment of the hegemony of these two endoglossic languages. The hegemony is explicitly manifest in the education sector where Shona is the medium of instruction in schools and is taught as a subject from first grade in all areas that are Shona dominated, and the same goes for Ndebele. This is regardless of whether other endoglossic languages are also in existence in these areas, even when they have the majority speakers.

The elevation of Shona and Ndebele has also seen them infiltrating some domains, which were previously preserved for English only. Shona can now be used as a medium of instruction at tertiary level. The Masvingo State University is using it as medium of instruction in some of its degree programs. The two languages are also used in the print and electronic media, and are sometimes used as medium of communication in parliament.

While the Constitution (2013) has changed the status of some languages to officially recognized languages, the language-in-education policy has remained the same. Of the 16 officially recognized languages, only nine can be used as medium of instruction in schools. This makes the implementation of the following section of the constitution very challenging, Section 7 of the current constitution, which deals with the promotion of public awareness of the constitution:

7 The state must promote public awareness of this constitution, in particular by:

(a) Translating it into all officially recognized languages and disseminating it as widely as possible (b) Encouraging all persons and organisations, including civil organisations, to disseminate awareness and knowledge of this constitution throughout society.

From a language policy and planning perspective, the best way to implement this would have been to start from the education sector maybe through acquisition and corpus planning.

Apart from the 16 languages mentioned as the officially recognized ones, there are other languages spoken in Zimbabwe of which the constitution is silent. These are other African languages, Indian, Chinese and European languages of origin with a significant number of speakers. Thirty-five years after independence, legislation still denies some languages space in the country’s linguistic ecology though this does not make them go away.

3.2 THE ORIGINS OF THE LANGUAGE QUESTION IN ZIMBABWE

3.2.1 Early missionary work and the genesis of literary work in Zimbabwe: the blessings and the curses Early missionary work in Zimbabwe precedes colonialism. When missionaries (the likes of Robert Moffat of the London Missionary Society, The Wesleyan Methodists, The Catholics, and others.) first came to Zimbabwe in the late 1800s, their main mission was evangelism. They wanted to win souls for God’s Kingdom and that meant conversion from what they termed, according to Zvobgo (1996), the African heathen way of life. African religions, Antsen (1997) explains, were treated by missionaries as an evil which had to be countered by salvation in Jesus Christ. The word that they preached was in written form, the Bible, through the medium of English and this was supposed to be preached to an illiterate people whose competence in English was zero. This made evangelization very difficult if not impossible. The only solution was that either the missionaries had to learn the local language or the local people had to learn English. If the local people were to learn the language of the missionaries, it was also important that they learn how to read and write so that they could read the Bible on their own and propagate the message forward. The missionaries chose both options. For option two, that meant the introduction of schools (Zvobgo 1996, Bourdillon 1990). The introduction of schools meant that the local languages, which

75 had existed over time only in oral form, had to be reduced to writing. This in a way also changed the indigenous people’s perception of their own languages.

The missionaries in the then Rhodesia did not operate from one central point mainly because they were coming from different denominations and conquered, as it were, different geographical locations. The following table, with information from Doke (1931) shows the different missionary groups and when and where they established mission centers they were operating from.

Missionary group Mission station Year of Province established (named establishment after local area)

London Missionary Inyati Hope 1859 Matabeleland Society Foutain 1870

The Wesleyan Waddilove 1892 Mashonaland East Methodists Epworth 1892 Mashonaland Central

The Catholics Chishawasha 1892 Mashonaland East Triashill 1896 Manicaland

Methodist Episcopal 1892 Manicaland (United Methodist)

Anglican Church St Augustine’s 1898 Manicaland

American Methodist Mt Selinda 1893 Manicaland

Chikore 1893

Dutch Reformed Morgenster 1891 Masvingo Church

Table 15: Established mission stations. As illustrated in Table 19, denominations established mission stations and restricted the activities in these particular regions or provinces. Even for different missionary groups who happened to operate within the same province, there was no coordination. Therefore, as they endeavored to come up with writing systems, each of these missionary groups based its writing system on the language of its locality. The result was different orthographies for different missionary groups. The missionaries however realized that working individually was proving to be costly in terms of printing and

76 publishing. They therefore started on a mission to find a common orthography for all the languages (dialects) spoken in the country except for languages spoken in Matabeleland. The fact that there is mutual intelligibility among these dialects made the attempt at unification a viable option. The Kalanga dialect was, however, left out of the unification because the degree of mutual intelligibility with the other dialects is very low. Instead, the Kalanga speaking community was put under Ndebele, where it was recognized that Kalanga and Ndebele had more in common than with the other dialects (Doke 1931).

The first attempt at unification was at the Southern Rhodesia Missionary Conference held in 1903. This conference, however, did not achieve much because the missionary groups, instead of accommodating one another, each wanted the dialect of its locality to be prominent in the new, unified language. Several other meetings were held, but it was difficult to agree on one thing especially in terms of vocabulary, spelling system and word division. Although nothing significant was achieved, Doke (1931a:5) contends that the missionary initiative had pushed four dialects into prominence, i.e. Karanga, Zezuru, Manyika and Ndau. In 1928, the missionaries sought government intervention. This resulted in the British South African Company inviting the South African linguist, CM Doke. His main mandate was to study the linguistic situation in the country and come up with recommendations for the unification of the Shona dialects into one language.

When the British South African Company (BSAC) arrived in the then Rhodesia in 1890, missionaries were already there. In its administration of Mashonaland between 1890 and 1923, the BSAC according to Magwa (2010) found keen support from a number of missionary groups. BSAC entered into different agreements with different missionary groups. For instance, there was an agreement that the Jesuits would cater for the educational needs of the settlers’ children and children of the Shona people, while Dominican sisters from the Roman Catholic Church would provide health services in the country. This explains why the missionaries sought BSAC intervention when there was a stalemate amongst different missionary groups on the issue of the unification of the Shona dialects in 1929. As part of the agreement between BSAC and missionaries, missionaries were responsible for educational issues but they in turn wanted sponsorship from the government to produce readers published in the vernacular for African schools. They also wanted their Bible and other religious

77 materials to be produced in one form that could be used by the various ethnic groups. It should be recognized that religion was actually the focus of their curricula in schools, not academic. They therefore wanted their materials to be translated into a language that the locals fully understood in order to have maximum effect in their evangelism. Given this scenario, the BSAC, as the financial sponsors were only willing to let the vernaculars be used as medium of instruction in the first years of African education, but would only give grant-in-aid for the production of textbooks and readers for Mashonaland and Matabeleland if single versions could be determined (Magwa 2010), hence the invitation to the linguist CM Doke. Before looking at C M Doke’s contribution towards the unification of the Shona dialects and further marginalization of indigenous languages and dialects, the section below discusses the implications of missionary work so far.

3.2.2 Implications of early missionary work on indigenous languages Research has indicated that the indigenous languages of Zimbabwe owe their existence in written form to the early missionaries (Viriri 2004, Zvobgo 1996, Bourdillon 1990). Although their main aim was evangelism and conversion of the so-called heathen African, the role they played in the compartmentalization of the local languages into a written system cannot be overemphasized. The development of orthographies ushered in an epoch of literary translation that marked the beginning of Zimbabwean literature (Viriri 2004). This change from oratory to literacy has helped keep the Zimbabwean body of knowledge and culture in a constant state, which has helped generations. When both the missionaries and the colonizers came to Zimbabwe, they painted a bad picture of the African people and their way of life. The missionaries looked at the Zimbabwean culture as heathen and barbaric hence the need to convert them to a better way of life. The colonizers collaborated with the missionaries and looked at the indigenous people as inferior. The emergence of a proper writing system provided the African with an opportunity to bring forward positive aspects of these African knowledge systems and cultures that have been ignored, misinterpreted and misrepresented (Makaudze & Gudhlanga 2014). This has resulted in the budding of Zimbabwean writers who rose to redress such situations. Solomon Mutswairo is one such writer. In his Shona novel entitled Feso, Makaudze & Gudhlanga (ibid) contend that Mutswairo digs into the Shona past, unearthing rich layers of heritage for the benefit of the contemporary Zimbabwean person. This

78 redress has gone a long way not only in understanding Zimbabwean humanity and way of life, but also in returning dignity to the Zimbabwean people.

The transition has also altered the Zimbabweans’ view of their own languages in relation to other languages and consequently the way they view themselves as a people and as individual ethnic groups that form the Zimbabwean people. Mutswairo (1958), in his novel Feso, potrays Shona people as they view themselves as a people and as a way of asserting their culture. The transition has also awakened some degree of consciousness within the Zimbabwean people as they begin to see issues of language as issues of identity. This is depicted in the following extract from Msindo (2012:118),

Outside Matabeleland, missionary societies produced different print versions of local languages. Missionaries among the Manyika produced a ChiManyika version of the Bible, those in Fort Victoria (now Masvingo) produced the Bible and booklets in Karanga, those in Mount Selinda produced Chindau and those in parts of Mashonaland produced Zezuru.

Although authors like Ndlovu-Gatsheni & Mhlanga (2013) argue that the above scenario reflected the different missionary groups’ rivalries over language documentation and spheres of evangelical influence, it can also be argued that the scenario depicted a part of the “untold” diverse nature of the Zimbabwean ethnicity. Had this been maintained, Zimbabwe would have been associated with democratic language policies.

On the other hand, however, the advent of literacy in Zimbabwe also ushered in a new wave of linguistic marginalization. Collaboration between the early missionaries and the colonists on their different missions, intentional or not, led to the denigration of indigenous languages. Their language-in-education policy was meant to uplift the status of English at the expense of local languages.

3.2.3 CM Doke: The unification of the Shona dialects and the perpetuation of the marginalization of indigenous languages in Zimbabwe Having been granted a Travelling Fellowship for Research by the Carnegie Corporation, I reached Salisbury at the end of January 1929, to commence investigations into the phonetics and philology of the languages spoken by the natives of Mashonaland. Owing to the assistance provided by the Government of Southern Rhodesia, I was able to include in my researches a thorough study of the language position

throughout the country, with a view to advising the Government upon a uniform orthography and a possible unification of dialects for the standardization of an official language for that part of Rhodesia inhabited by the Shona-speaking peoples (Doke 1931:1).

The quotation above gives an overview of the mandate given to the linguist CM Doke. Prior to his coming, the government of Southern Rhodesia was divided into two blocks, Matabeleland and Mashonaland. In Matabeleland, one language was identified, Ndebele, and in Mashonaland, there were several dialects spoken in different geographical locations. Although these dialects were different, the degree of mutual intelligibility was quite high, hence the possibility of unifying them. The dialects identified are as follows: Zezuru, Karanga, Korekore, Manyika, Ndau and Kalanga. It should also be noted that these dialects also have subdialects. Examples can be noted from the Karanga and Ndau dialect groups as cited by Doke (1931:32).

SUBDIALECT AREA

Duma Victoria, Bikita, Ndanga

Jena Victoria

Mari Chibi, Belingwe, Selukwe

Govera Gutu, Chilimanzi, Victoria

Gova Selukwe

Nyubi Mzingwane, Matobo, Gwanda

Table 16: Karanga subdialects and geographical location SUBDIALECT AREA

Ndau Melsetter

Tonga Charter, Gutu, Bikita

Garwe Melsetter

Danda Mossurize, Sofala

Table 17: Ndau subdialects and geographical location Source: Doke (1931:34-5)

The sixth dialect group, the Kalanga group consists of the following subdialects: Nyau, Nambya, Rozvi, Kalanga, Talahundra, Lilima/Humbe and Peri. Doke did not specify the actual geographical areas where these sub-dialects are spoken, except that they are the western group of Shona. The issue of sub-dialects is included here because it also has implications on the unification of the dialects. There is a great possibility of some sub-dialects being excluded and falling away hence either dying a natural death or resulting in issues of language resistance rife in most African countries. Either way, this has a negative effect on the language speakers.

After his research, Doke (1931) came up with eleven recommendations covering the area of orthography, grammatical standardization, vocabulary and implementation with regards to implementation of changes and development of literature. This section will not however discuss all the eleven recommendations. It will only discuss those recommendations, which have a bearing on the marginalization of the indigenous languages. It should be noted that Doke’s (1931) report was accepted by the then Southern Rhodesia government and his recommendations were implemented in the education system then run by missionaries. The implementation of these recommendations has had a bearing on language policy, which is being perpetuated even in present-day independent Zimbabwe. The report also marks the beginning of the official marginalization of some indigenous languages in the country.

3.2.3.1 Recommendation 1

That there be two official native languages recognized in Southern Rhodesia, one for the main Shona-speaking area, and one for the Ndebele-speaking area.

The quotation below elaborates on areas covered by the first recommendation.

By the Shona-speaking area, I mean the area covered by Zezuru, Karanga, Korekore, Manyika, Ndau groups and would add to these the non-Shona areas south of the Karanga. By the Ndebele-speaking area I refer to the part delimited as such on the map appended to the report, and for purposes of official communication with the people, would add to that the areas covered by the Kalanga group in Wankie,, Nyamandhlovu and Bulalima-Nangwe. For educational purposes, there will be a further suggestion regarding this area. Naturally certain of the representative districts will be bilingual, especially Gwanda and Gwelo. It may be possible to treat the whole of Sebungwe through the medium of Shona,

as the non-Shona section (Tonga is also non-Ndebele), and thus save that area from being treated as bilingual. Doke (1931:76-77)

To begin with, dividing Zimbabwe into two linguistic blocks, the Ndebele and the Shona gives a wrong perception that the country only consists of two languages when in fact other languages like Tonga, Kalanga, Sotho, Shangani, to name a few, have been in existence prior to the unification of the Shona dialects. Their exclusion from the linguistic ecology of the country denies them linguistic citizenship. The recommendation that Ndebele and Shona were to be official languages even in non-Ndebele and non-Shona speaking areas creates the false impression that they were better languages than the languages they were to dominate. Doke recommended that the area of Sebungwe, which is predominantly Tonga speaking be dominated by the Shona language whereas the western part of the country be Ndebele dominated, including areas where Kalanga is predominant. These languages had existed together in harmony before and the question of language status then was not an issue particularly in the Mashonaland area. However, with the implementation of this recommendation, there was a deliberate effort not only to stratify indigenous languages, but also to completely inhibit and annihilate the so-called minority languages. Chimhundu (2005:9) observes that indeed very little attention has been paid officially to Zimbabwe’s 14 minority languages since then. As a result, what we see is a great discrepancy in terms of prestige and status between Ndebele and Shona on the one hand and the minority languages on the other. There is gross underdevelopment of minority languages because language policies and practice have been determined by Doke’s recommendations. The adoption of this recommendation in particular therefore officially ushered in an epoch of minority languages marginalization and the imposing of Shona and Ndebele hegemony over minority languages.

3.2.3.2 Recommendation 2

That one unified literary language be recognized to serve the main Shona area excluding Western (Kalanga) group

As discussed earlier in the chapter, the linguistic ecology of the main Shona area consisted of the following five language varieties (excluding the western Kalanga group): Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika, Korekore and Ndau. This means the unified language should accommodate these five dialects. Unfortunately, the degree of mutual intelligibility amongst the first three dialects is high, but very low between the first three and the last two. Zezuru, Karanga and Manyika language speakers find it easy to communicate and mutually understand one another using any one of the varieties. It is, however, very difficult for a Ndau or Korekore speaker to understand any conversation carried out in either Zezuru, Karanga or Manyika. Unifying all the five languages would therefore mean that there are some language variety speakers that are going to be disadvantaged by this unification. In this case, the Ndau and Korekore speakers in particular were disadvantaged. The Korekore variety was not seriously taken into consideration mainly because it was not represented in the language committee appointed by government to assist Doke in data collection. The committee comprised of Reverend B. H. Barnes representing Ndau and Manyika, Mrs C. Louw representing Karanga and Reverend A. Burbridge, Zezuru (Chimhundu 2005:15). Korekore was therefore unfortunate in that there was no one to fight for its significant inclusion in the unification. The language could not find representation because it is found in an area, which is historically known for tsetse fly infestation, and unsuitable for any kind of farming, therefore both missionary attempt and colonial settlement was minimal. This therefore forms the basis of the denigration of the Korekore variety.

The Ndau variety on the other hand was represented in the language committee but unfortunately, it seems as though Reverend Barnes favored Manyika more than Ndau and therefore pushed for the significant inclusion of Manyika. The other reason could also be that Doke had realized the marked differences between Ndau and the other four varieties and therefore wanted to avoid creating difficulties in the unification. What would not make linguistic sense, however, was the inclusion of Ndau in the unification when the degree of mutual intelligibility is so low. An option would have been to look at it as a separate language and creating a separate orthography as was the case with

Kalanga. Its inclusion in the unification is only theoretical since practically the Ndau speakers would have problems communicating in the unified Shona language

3.2.3.3 Recommendation 4

That a unified grammar be standardized based on Karanga and Zezuru

In his research, Doke found that there were no real differences between Karanga and Zezuru grammar and hence the basis for the recommendation. Since the differences were minor, Doke (1931:31) considered the eleven subdialects of Zezuru as constituting central Shona. The Shona grammar is therefore inclined more to Zezuru. Thus one finds that even in the recommended unified language, language varieties are stratified, with some completely left out. There is therefore no equal distribution in terms of representation in the unified language, which has led to dialectical stratification. Within the Shona cluster, Zezuru exists as the High variety, followed by Karanga and at the bottom, the rest of the dialects. The lower the dialect on the stratification ladder, the more inferior it becomes. Unfortunately, the level of status allocated to a language, is the same level of status allocated to the language speakers.

Chimhenga & Chivhanga (2014) explore the triglossic relationship of Zezuru, Karanga and other Shona dialects and contend that the relationship poses some educational and social problems. Due to its central role, Zezuru is the dialect that is accepted in writing of the Shona language by Zimbabwean schools, publishers of Shona literary work and the media (Chimhenga & Chivhanga 2014). This has a negative effect on language speakers of dialects that are not included in the grammar of the unified language. For instance, Korekore grammar is not included in the unified Shona grammar. This means that Korekore learners would find it very difficult to pass their Shona examination, particularly those with no Zezuru background. The Shona examination at Ordinary Level consists of two papers. Paper One comprises comprehension questions, summary and essay writing. Paper Two comprises grammar, novels and poetry questions. In addition to the purely grammar

84 questions, every other aspect of the paper still requires perfect articulation of grammar.

Basing Shona grammar on Zezuru, and to a lesser extent on Karanga, means that developing Shona is developing these two varieties at the expense of other dialects. The writer concurs with Chimhenga & Chivhanga (2014) who argue that basing Shona writing on one dialect kills the other dialects and, in turn, the Shona language. The other varieties are left out of the language development project and will eventually die a natural death. This also does a disservice to the development of Shona literary works since the pool from which to get Shona writers is only limited to the Zezuru and to a lesser extent, Karanga clusters.

Socially, stratification of dialects also has a negative impact on issues of identity and social affiliation. Speakers from dialects, which have been left out, feel inferior. In most cases, such speakers feel that their dialect is not good enough and would therefore choose to be identified with the dominant dialects. This leaves their dialects at the mercy of extinction since maintenance becomes difficult because of lack of intergenerational transmission. The Shona dialects are tonal dialects and exhibit tones peculiar to certain dialects. However, because speakers want to be associated with the dominant dialect, some dialect speakers have assimilated the Zezuru tone.

3.2.3.4 Recommendation 5

That a dictionary of Shona be prepared, to be as inclusive as possible of words from Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika and Ndau. That for the present Korekore words be admitted sparingly and that the use of colloquial words from the dialects of Budya, Tavara, Karombe, Danda, Teve, etc., be discouraged

Though in terms of vocabulary the recommendation tried to be as accommodative of all the five dialects as possible, there still remains an element of marginalization. According to the recommendation, Korekore words are to be admitted sparingly. This calculated isolation of the Korekore variety means that Korekore is being subtly removed from the unified Shona language.

Korekore grammar is not accommodated in the unification; its vocabulary is sparingly accommodated. For the Korekore speaker therefore, learning Shona is like learning a second language. Due to their geographical location, they remain isolated and chances of contact with the dominant Zezuru and Karanga dialects remain minimal. A workable option would have been creating a separate writing system for Korekore to maintain the country’s linguistic ecology.

3.2.3.5 Recommendation 8

That for the Western Area Ndebele or Zulu be recognised as the official language, and that for educational purposes this official language be used in the following districts: Insiza, Mzingwane, Matobo, Bulawayo, Bubi, most of Nyamandhlovu, and portions of Bulalima-Mangwe and Gwelo

Although Doke’s mandate was the unification of the Shona dialects, he also took the opportunity afforded to him to give his opinion on language use in the western block of the country. He recommended the use of Ndebele as the official language, disregarding other languages in the area like Kalanga and Tonga.

3.2.3.6 Recommendation 9

That the following procedure be adopted with regard to the Kalanga or Western Shona group of dialects:

(a) That unified Shona be not applied in this area As discussed earlier in the chapter, the Shona cluster consisted of six dialects inclusive of Kalanga. Kalanga’s exclusion from the unified Shona language meant its separation from its original cluster. The fact that the unified Shona was not to be applied in Kalanga speaking areas further marginalized the language. Implementation of this recommendation has further encouraged the dissimilation process of Kalanga from the Shona cluster, assimilating it to Ndebele. Their cultural values and ethos embodied in their original language is eroded, with no hope of recovery.

(b) That Kalanga be recognized for literary and educational purposes, but not as an official language Despite its alienation from the Shona cluster, something good happened to Kalanga. It was the only dialect with a proposed separate orthography. While the other five dialects were unified, they all lost varying degrees of their original flavor. Depending on the will and ethnic pride of the language speakers, this separate orthography was a stepping stone towards further development of the language; an opportunity, which the Kalanga people seem to have underutilized. The use of the language for literary and educational purposes was also an advantage, which placed Kalanga at a better position than the other individual dialects. However, these functions were extended in an unofficial way. Ndebele was to be the official language as proposed in Doke’s first recommendation, a recommendation that had been implemented and held until today. Kalanga has been hovering under the shadow of Ndebele since then. Ndebele has been officially elevated in this area while Kalanga has been denigrated. (c) That an orthography be adopted for Kalanga as proposed in paragraph 162 The implications of this recommendation have been discussed under subsection (b) above. (d) That no schools or other books be published in the Lilima or Nambya dialects Lilima and Nambya are part of the seven dialects that form the Western group of the Shona cluster. The other five are Kalanga, Rozvi, Nyai, Peri and Talahundra. No reason is given for the sidelining of Lilima and Nambya in terms of publication neither is the position of the other four excluding Kalanga clearly articulated. If these four were to be excluded, this means the imposition of Kalanga as the dominant though non-official language in relation to all the other dialects of the Western Shona cluster. Once again, an element of language stratification is realized in the western part of the country. At the top is Ndebele, followed by Kalanga and then the rest of the

western Shona dialects. It is difficult to tell whether this was intentional or not, but a pattern of language stratification and marginalization has emerged from Doke’s recommendations on the unification of the Shona dialects. (e) That, in view of extension into the Tati Concession and Bechuanaland of the Kalanga and Lilima peoples, the native education department of the Bechuanaland Protectorate be approached to participate in the preparation, production and cost of the necessary educational literature in Kalanga. One would have thought that uprooting Kalanga from its original language cluster was enough, but uprooting and throwing it beyond borders is beyond imagination. The implication here is that the local government would have nothing to do with Kalanga since there is no implication of collaboration on preparation, production and cost of literary works with Botswana. All the responsibility was thrown on to the shoulders of Botswana as if Kalanga is only found in Botswana. This shifting of responsibility has resulted in little or no effort on the part of government to develop all the species in its linguistic ecology.

While applauding Doke for his efforts on the creation of the Shona orthography as we have it today, the effects this has had on the marginalization of indigenous Zimbabwean languages cannot go unnoticed. Acceptance and implementation of Doke’s recommendations acted as an official seal on the dominance of Shona and Ndebele languages over indigenous languages in Zimbabwe. It created and sealed Zezuru’s hegemony over all the other dialects within the Shona cluster. It also painted the picture that some languages are so unimportant that they could be left out of language development and use in important domains. These are dialects like Nambya, Kalanga, and Korekore, which the linguist Doke has literally signed a death sentence over. If a language is not used in domains such as education, it means it cannot be used in any other important domain, which makes it difficult for government to allocate financial resources towards its development because it lacks economic currency. Such languages have thus been denied any space in the country’s linguistic ecology.

3.3 THE EDUCATION SECTOR AND ITS EFFECTS ON INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE SPEAKERS IN COLONIAL AND POST INDEPENDENT ZIMBABWE The hegemonic tendencies of English explicitly manifest in the education sector. Under the British South African Company, the language-in-education policy promoted the use of English as the medium of instruction. English was the only medium of instruction in schools for the whites and was introduced from the first grade of primary school in schools for black people where it gradually assumed a more prominent role in the second year, and finally became the language of instruction throughout the curriculum by the third year (Doke 1931). During this time, little attention was given to indigenous languages. If they were to be used, it was only partly in the first grade, it was supposed to be given up after a period of six months (Doke 1931). It should also be noted that at this point in time, the Shona language as we have it now, was non- existent. Instead, there were a number of what are currently referred to as the Shona dialects, and of course Ndebele, which has always carried the status of a language in Zimbabwe. Therefore, depending on geographical location, the various dialects (Karanga in Masvingo, Zezuru in Mashonaland, Manyika and Ndau in Manicaland,) were given little status in the education sector.

The introduction of schools in colonial Rhodesia was not meant to educate indigenous people the same way it is meant today. The education system was three-pronged; religious, literary and industrial (Magwa 2008). The religious aspect was meant to satisfy the needs of the missionaries, the literary aspect was meant to satisfy the needs of both the missionaries and the colonial government. For effective propagation of the word of God, the indigenous people were supposed to be able to read the various biblical materials offered by the missionaries. The colonial officers also wanted the indigenous people to be able to read and write so that they could follow instructions given in order for them to work effectively work for their colonial masters. Lastly, the industrial aspect was meant to satisfy the needs of the colonial government. They had colonized Zimbabwe because they wanted to tap into the economy of the country, but they did not want to do the hard work themselves. The hard work was for the local people. The curriculum therefore was supposed to be in such a way that it concentrated on industrial training. The education ordinance of 1903 repeated the insistence that industrial work must be systematically taught and it also stipulated that pupils were supposed to be taught to speak and understand English (Magwa 2008). Therefore, the education sector only served as a way of ensuring colonial and

89 missionary domination of the indigenous people. The objective was never to uplift the local people to the level of the colonizers, but to enable them to serve their masters. Working under such a premise, both the colonial masters and the missionaries saw no obligation to develop the local languages to the level of English as, in their view, the local people only needed the basics in the reading and writing of their local languages.

With the dawn of independence in 1980, the new government saw the need to accommodate indigenous languages. The colonial policy was later replaced by the post-independent Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987, which was later amended in 1990, 1996 and 2006. Significant differences are noted between the 1987 and the 2006 acts, the two acts which are going to be discussed in length in this chapter.

3.3.1 The Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987

Section 62 of the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987.

1. Subject to this section, the three main languages of Zimbabwe namely Shona, Ndebele and English shall be taught in all primary schools from the first grade as follows:- a. Shona and English in all areas where the mother tongue of the majority of the residents is Shona, or b. Ndebele and English in all areas where the mother tongue of the majority of residents is Ndebele 2. Prior to fourth grade, either of the languages referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) may be used as the medium of instruction, depending upon which language is commonly spoken and better understood by the pupils. 3. From the fourth grade, English shall be the medium of instruction, provided that Shona and Ndebele shall be taught as subjects on equal time allocation basis as the English language. 4. In all areas where minority languages exist, the Minister may authorise the teaching of such languages in primary schools in addition to those specified in subsection (1) (2) and (3).

3.3.2 The Zimbabwe Education Amendment Act of 2006

1. Subject to this section, all the three main languages of Zimbabwe, namely Shona, Ndebele and English shall be taught on an equal time basis in all schools up to form 2 level.

2. In areas where indigenous languages other than those mentioned in subsection (1) are spoken, the Minister may authorise the teaching of such languages in schools in addition to those specified in subsection (1). 3. The Minister may authorise the teaching of foreign languages in schools. 4. Prior to form one, any one of the languages referred to in subsection (1) and (2) may be used as medium of instruction depending upon which language is more commonly spoken and better understood by pupils. 5. Sign language should be the priority medium of instruction for the deaf and hard of hearing.

The language-in-education policy in Zimbabwe reflects three types of education, at least in the lower level of primary education as follows:

(a) Monolingual education – this is for English first language speakers, which consists generally of the white population and a number of local indigenous people who have been assimilated into English and now use English as their home language. These simply carry over their home language into the education domain.

(b) Bilingual education – this is for Shona and Ndebele speakers, who use their respective mother languages at home and as medium of instruction in lower primary school together with English.

(c) Bilingual education plus L1 tuition – this is for minority language speakers, who use their mother language at home, are faced with either Shona or Ndebele (depending on their geographical location) and also English when they get to school.

The Education Act promulgated after independence perpetuated the dominant nature of English over the indigenous languages. English was used from Grade Four onwards as the only medium of instruction, which is bilingual education with assimilation tendencies. Shona and Ndebele were to be used as media of instruction from Grade One to Grade Three, then as subjects from Grade Four to university. It is interesting to note that Shona and Ndebele are taught in English at university level. So even though Shona and Ndebele were incorporated in the 1987 Education Act, their roles were relegated to only the levels of the first three grades of schooling. Other indigenous languages were not even considered. This means the minority languages speaking schoolchildren, including Tonga the language under study, were forced to learn in either Shona or Ndebele depending on their geographical location. At home, these children would use their mother tongue, only to be forced to switch to another

91 language the moment they enter the classroom. This disparity between the home language and the school language has negative effects on a number of aspects.

The fact that the language of teaching and learning matters in the classroom context cannot be disputed, at the same time, the importance of a well-developed mother tongue as a stepping stone for second and third language learning cannot be overemphasised. Congruency between the recommended medium of instruction, the teacher’s and learner’s language is also crucial if any teaching and learning is to take place. Anything to the contrary has negative effects on the minority language learner. As can be inferred from the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987, 1990 and 1996, the language of the home could not be carried over into the classroom at the beginning of schooling in minority language speaking areas because using minority languages as media of instruction was done at the discretion of the minister. The minister, on the other hand, could not rationally authorise the use of minority languages because there were no resources in terms of teachers trained to teach using these languages and also material resources.

The scenario described above has a number of negative effects on the minority language learner (Vygotsky 1978, Cummins 1994, Huedner 1996, Crystal 2000, Peresuh & Masuku 2002, Mavunga 2010). Firstly, it creates some form of educational paradox. When children reach the age of five or six, they get so excited about going to school. However, when they get to Grade One, they encounter their worst nightmare, yes, the classroom doors are open for them, but the moment they enter the classroom, they are denied the opportunity to learn. Zimbabwe’s “Education for all” slogan is rendered useless. In the first place, these young children find a teacher who is either Shona or Ndebele speaking, who may be able to speak Tonga but with limited competency, or a teacher who cannot speak Tonga at all, but is not willing to learn the language. Both types of teachers would be forced by the situation to use a bit of their language, the learner’s language and the recommended medium of instruction, which is English. The struggle to align the three languages is too much for the young minds. Their struggle is two-pronged: they firstly struggle to understand the language used by the teacher and secondly struggle to learn in the language used by the teacher. Such a situation takes away all the excitement of starting school and adds on to the apprehensiveness of venturing into this unfamiliar area. It makes the young learners feel uneasy and less participative in class, consequently leading to gross

92 underperformance and a general lack of interest in schooling leading to high dropout rates.

Secondly, the disparity between home language and medium of instruction also creates cognitive dissonance. This is a negative cognitive state created because of two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent. According to Vygotsky (1978), language and thought processes develop together, with language facilitating thinking. This means that if language is not well developed, it affects the thinking processes. In situations where a child has a variety of underdeveloped languages, without a firm foundation in at least one language, this then becomes a breeding ground for cognitive confusion. In most of these cases, learners are labelled as dull. Elsewhere, minority language speaking learners have been erroneously diagnosed as students with learning disabilities and were improperly placed in special education classes (Mercer 1973, cited by Gersten & Woodward 1994). The confusion does not only lie with the learners, but the teachers as well. They are equally faced with the problem of teaching a second language and developing academic abilities in a relatively short period of time (Gersten & Woodward 1994), since the Education Act advocates the use of indigenous languages in the first three grades of primary school only. It is crucial to note that during the time of Bantu education in South Africa, when the mother tongue was phased in and maintained for years as the primary language of learning, the matriculation results of black students readily improved reaching their zenith in 1976 with 83.7% pass rate (Heugh 1999). The author further asserts that the pass rate dropped to as low as 48.3% by 1982 and 44% by 1992. This was attributed to the Training and Education Act that was passed in 1979, which reduced mother tongue education to four years of primary school.

Apart from problems associated with educational achievement and development, the Zimbabwe language-in-education policy also has a negative impact on social issues. Section 62 of the Education Act sidelines the use of minority languages as languages of teaching and learning (LOLT), as well as subjects that can be learnt at school. This marginalisation and oppressive tendency has effects on people’s attitude towards languages, attitudes that allow them to display either an assimilationist or additive approach towards their mother tongues.

To begin with, Section 62 is assimilationist in nature. All indigenous languages can only be used as LOLT up to grade seven, thereafter, the only recommended LOLT is English. This means that the higher one climbs the academic ladder, the more one is alienated from using his/her language and become assimilated into the dominant language. For Banda (2009), contact with English necessarily leads to English monolingualism and multilingualism and multiculturalism are thus inadvertently discounted as viable options. By so doing, people are denied the use of their language not only in education, but also in every other important domain. Unfortunately, this means the relegation of indigenous languages to low domains in society. More often than not, this would be used as rationale for lack of priority in developing these languages. The level of political will is diminished. Governments would see no benefit in using financial resources on languages that are insignificant and would channel resources to other issues that are considered more important and beneficial. In other words, such languages are left to die a natural death unless the communities themselves rise and fight for the development of their own languages. This now would depend, among other things, on the attitude of the communities towards their own languages as well as their attitude towards the dominant language or languages.

The assimilationist and hegemonic tendency of section 62 does not only deny minority language speakers of their language, it also denies them their culture, and consequently who they really are. The more one is alienated from one’s language, the more one is assimilated into another language, another culture. This is because there is a very thin line between language and culture since the two are interwoven. One can only be competent in a language when he/she knows both the rules of grammar and the register under which the language would operate appropriately. According to Fought (2006), you cannot ask people to change the way they use language without asking them to change something essential about their identity. In other words, the Education Act is arguably asking the minority language speakers to change the way they use language, to slowly shift their language use pattern in favour of dominant languages, losing their languages, cultures and identities along the way.

In essence, most post-colonial language-in-education policies simply perpetuated colonial legacy. There has been indeed a shift in Africa generally, towards accommodating indigenous languages and promoting them to official status, but they still exist in a diglossic relationship to colonial languages. Colonial languages still wield

94 power even decades after independence in most, if not all, once colonised African countries. Portuguese, English and French, the languages of the former colonisers are still the High varieties in relation to African languages in their respective countries. During the colonial era, these languages were glorified, French as the language of reason, logic and human rights, English as the language of modernity, parliamentary democracy, technological progress and national unity (Skutnubb-Kangas 2000), the same prestige and power that they hold today. This power is reproduced and conveyed through language use in most, if not all, important domains like in education, business, government, etc. In other words, indigenous languages are still looked down upon. Even where they are elevated, there is no parity with colonial languages. One would have expected to see the education sector taking the leading role in trying to correct this anomaly by including local languages in its curricular. This would have led to the development of indigenous languages in terms of corpus and status and this would have gone a long way in combating the discontent and linguistic wars that characterise most African countries today. Although at face value most ethnic groups seem to be fighting linguistic wars, the discontent runs deeper than linguistics. From a behaviourist point of view, attitudes towards a language are often a reflection of attitudes towards various ethnic groups (Fasold 1987:146). The level of importance attached to a language is normally the level of importance attached to the speakers of that particular language. Therefore, as minority language speakers fight for their linguistic rights, they are also fighting for social, political and economic space. It should be noted that the ultimate goal is not to remove colonial languages from their former colonies for this would be detrimental in a number of ways. Pennycook (2001:65) succinctly sums up the rationale for linguistic resistance below:

Resistance perspective provides for the possibility that in everyday life, the powerless in post-colonial communities may find ways to negotiate, alter and oppose political structures and reconstruct their languages, cultures and identities to their advantage. The intention is not to reject English, but to reconstitute it in more inclusive, ethical and democratic terms.

Whenever a language is neither taught as a subject at school nor used as language of teaching and learning (LOLT), it depreciates and is relegated to low-level domains. This creates the view that not only is the language inferior, but the speakers of that particular language as well. People from dominant languages would look at them as

95 inferior. Zimbabwe, in particular, has been imagined largely as a Shona- Ndebele speaking country, with the former as the dominant ethnic group (Makoni 2011), which means minority language speakers are left out of the country’s linguistic citizenry and appear to be non-existent. Maja (2008) argues that minority language speakers are construed as linguistic oddities, deficient, suffering from lack of knowledge…and backward rather than owners of a positive resource, another language, or multilingual skills. Maybe an important question to ask at this juncture is, how then do these minority language speakers view themselves, as a people and in relation to dominant language speakers? This gives rise to the question of attitude since these minority language speakers need to negotiate their position in society, particularly outside their own communities. The question of attitude plays a very important role and should not be underestimated since it can result in the maintenance or resistance of the status quo.

Batibo (2005) defines attitude as a feeling, reaction or emotional disposition towards an idea, concept or phenomenon. Attitudes develop in early childhood and are the result of parents’ and peers’ attitudes, of contact with people who are different in any number of ways, and of interacting different factors in the human experience (Hosseini & Pourmandnia 2013). People, either as an individual or as a community can have either an additive or an assimilationist approach or attitude towards language. What determines the attitude they will take is normally their belief about their language in relation to the dominant language as well as other people’s (in particular the dominant language speakers) view of the minority languages. It can also be as a result of the expected benefits (or lack thereof) of learning or using that language/s. People who would adopt an additive approach are those who have a positive attitude towards their own language and want to maintain it for some reason. People may be proud of their language and want to preserve it as a symbol of ethnic identity, but at the same time accept the need to learn other languages. Batibo (1998) carried out some research on language attitudes among the Khoesan speakers of North-Eastern Botswana and he came up with the following findings:

POSITIVE RESPONSES %

ITEM L1 L1&2 L2 L2&3 L3

Language that parents would like children to 6.9 0.0 79.3 13.8 0.0 speak at home

Language that parents would like to be used 0.0 6.5 58.1 32.2 3.2 as medium of instruction at school

Language that should be used in their 16.6 26.7 56.7 0.0 0.0 community

Origins of names given to children 19.2 19.6 51.6 6.4 3.3

Speakers should be known under identity. 71.4 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0

Table 18: Language attitudes among the Khoesan of North-Eastern Botswana L1- Mother Tongue

L2- National language Setswana

L3- Ex-colonial language (English)

Source: Batibo (1998:268)

The Botswana linguistic landscape, like Zimbabwe, is modelled in a triglossic manner, with English being the most prestigious, followed by Tswana and other community languages like Khoesan respectively. From the table of findings above, it can be deduced that the Khoesan prefer the use of their ethnic language as a symbol of their identity. Language use in this particular domain does not necessarily require language development in terms of orthographies and standardisation, but could be maintained through cultural activities. The Khoesan people however prefer the national indigenous language, Tswana, to be used in the classroom as the medium of instruction and they want it to be used in their homes and communities. This is crucial for learners since this would ensure a continuation of the home language in the school domain. This means that attitudes play certain roles. According to Gardner & Lambert (1972), instrumental attitudes are associated with the desire to receive social status recognition or profitable benefits while integrative attitudes are associated with the desire to be integrated into another language community.

The Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987, if transferred and applied to the Khoesan community, would work well and produce the most likely expected results. It should be noted from the findings that the Khoesan community seem to work under the premise that linguistic diversity is good for their community and that the languages can co-exist peacefully. This co-existence without confrontation is only possible because the motivation for the existence of the two or more languages is very different. Each language is allocated a different function, in a different domain. For these people, the bottom line is that their language remains and they keep it active as a symbol of identity and they are not worried about its position on the social status ladder.

Apart from Batibo’s (2005) observation, there also exists another group of people who also exhibit an additive approach to language. However, this second group of people is so proud of its language that it would want to develop the language so that it goes beyond ethnic symbolism and venture into new domains. This could be in reaction to dominant language speakers’ perception of their language, which in most cases is derogatory or, on the other hand, a mere question of linguistic pride. Coming from a minority group in a country whereby little, if not nothing, is done in terms of prioritising the development of minority languages, such an attitude would be deemed confrontational since in most cases the interests of such groups are not catered for by their respective governments. As can be seen from the provisions of the Zimbabwe Education Act, use of the minority languages in domains other than the home is not actively encouraged. This constitutes purposive exclusion of minority language speakers from the country’s linguistic citizenship. It therefore ultimately results in their exclusion from the socio, economic and political platform, benefits that they would expect to enjoy only if the status of their language were to be raised to the same level as the dominant languages, starting from the education sector, the backbone of all development. With such an attitude, any language group would fight for what it perceives to be its rights, the rights that are presumably denied by the 1987 Education Act.

Contrary to the additive approach to language, some language groups would resort to an assimilationist attitude towards the dominant language/s. They would look at the status given to their languages and all the negative things associated with them and would rather not be identified with these languages anymore. Such a group would look up to the dominant language/s because of the perceived benefits that can be derived

98 from learning these languages. Therefore, their attitude is outward looking. They would do this in a bid to run away from the poverty, marginalisation and the social ills associated with their languages. The exclusion of their languages from the education domain means that they have to find another language to identify with. They feel that they need to belong to a better group or community, which would in a way bring back their lost dignity. Such a feeling is what Maslow (1943) refers to as the need to belong and it is only natural that people need to identify with good things. The only problem now is that, such a group is neither eager to develop its own language, nor have it developed on their behalf, but would rather alienate their own language in favour of the dominant one. This means that they are alienating not only their language, but also their culture. They are letting their language and culture die a natural death. In so doing, they also lose their ethnic identity.

It is noteworthy that this is exactly what both the colonisers and the early missionaries wanted, to completely submerge the African and rescue him from his barbaric and backward culture. In a way, the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987 does exactly that and leaves the minority language speaker who is not strong-willed, who does not have resources or the right political connections with no choice but to join the dominant language bandwagon. This accounts for some minority language groups in Zimbabwe who do not seem to be doing anything for the uplifting of their languages but rather seem content with the status quo. This explains why out of Zimbabwe’s then six officially recognised minority languages, only one language, Tonga has taken great strides in terms of linguistic development and functional distribution. The other five have remained relatively quiet.

Overall, the language-in-education policy in Zimbabwe has never at any point in time overtly vied for the utilisation of the diverse languages in the Zimbabwean language ecology, in both pre and post-independent era. Though people may talk of multilingualism and maintenance of diverse species in the various linguistic ecologies, this is downplayed by both legislation and practice. In Zimbabwe, there has even emerged a group of indigenous elites who have been so assimilated and acculturated into English to such an extent that English has become the only language they speak and the only language they are passing on through intergenerational transmission. The implication is that the higher up one goes on the educational ladder, the more alienated one becomes from one’s mother tongue.

3.4 CONCLUSION This chapter has provided a discussion on the linguistic situation of Zimbabwe. The focus of the chapter is on the source of linguistic problems, which have resulted in the marginalisation of some languages and dialects. The missionaries’ efforts at the unification of the Shona dialects and Doke’s subsequent unification of the Shona dialects played a role in the hegemony of Shona and Ndebele over other indigenous languages as well as the hegemony of Zezuru and to some extent Karanga, over other Shona dialects. Both colonial and post-colonial language-in-education policies have also shown assimilationist tendencies towards English at the expense of local languages. As a result, what we have is stratification of linguistic species in the Zimbabwe linguistic ecology.

100

CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter 4 presents a discussion of the research design and approaches to data gathering used in the study. The research site is presented and the population and sampling criteria are described. The chapter also gives details of the data collection techniques employed, which are; interviews, questionnaires and material culture. An outline of the procedures for data analysis is also given, as well as issues of trustworthiness and ethical considerations.

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN Social science is an enterprise dedicated to “finding out”. No matter what you want to find out, there will likely be a great many ways of doing it. Ultimately, scientific inquiry comes down to making observations and interpreting what you have observed. Before you can observe and analyse, however, you need to plan. You need to determine what you are to observe and analyse: why and how. That is what research design is all about. Babbie 2004:87

Every research therefore needs a research design, one that meets the needs of the problem being investigated. Equally important is the consideration of the unit of analysis. The present study utilizes the case study research design. According to Miller & Brewer (2003), a case may involve the study of one individual or several or an event. For the current study, the units of analysis, that is, what is studied, are therefore the various social actors involved in the revitalisation of Tonga, as well as the various events that culminated in the development of the language. The different social actors include the following: Tonga chiefs from Binga District, Tonga Binga community, the Tonga Language and Cultural Organisation (TOLACO), the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, to name a few. The explanatory and descriptive aspects of the case study design answer the “what” and “why” questions of the present research, that is:

 Why revitalise Tonga?  What factors have contributed to this linguistic development?  What is the extent of the development?

101

Social scientists, in particular, make wide use of this research design to examine contemporary real-life situations and to provide the basis for the application of concepts and theories and the extension of methodologies (University of Southern California Libraries, n.d). Since language policy and planning are future oriented this study is done to generate knowledge that would contribute to positive decisions by language speakers and policy planners involved in the development of minority languages and cultures in Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

4.3 APPROACHES TO DATA COLLECTION On the qualitative-quantitative research continuum, the researcher draws on both the quantitative and the qualitative approach although the inclination is more on the qualitative approach. Qualitative research according to Creswell (1994:1) is:

An enquiry process of understanding a social or human problem based on building a complex, holistic picture formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants and conducted in a natural setting.

The aim according to Corbetta (2003:39-40) is to discover the social actor’s point of view, which naturally implies an active role on the part of the subject being studied. Muranda (2004) lists three fundamental characteristics of qualitative research as that:

 It uses unstructured questions or the observation technique

 It involves small samples

 It uses indirect methods of investigating feelings and perceptions, attitudes and beliefs.

4.3.1 Why qualitative research approach? The main motivation for adopting the qualitative research approach is against the backdrop of the following assumptions of qualitative research:

 Qualitative research as a design aims at understanding humans and human behaviour through a variety of methods, which are interactive. These include the primary techniques of interviewing, observing, gathering documents and examining material culture. Interviews and documents were chosen for reasons to be discussed later. Use of multi-methods in data gathering ensures reliability of the data gathered since weaknesses of one method are usually covered by the strength of the other if the methods are carefully chosen.

102

 Qualitative research was also chosen because of its emphasis on the involvement of the phenomenon being investigated, hence its participatory nature. Willis (2007) postulates that qualitative research involves participants in the design, execution, analysis and write-up of the study. This means that subjects are not just objects to be studied, but are active participants in the study. This is especially relevant in the current study because the researcher aims at discovering the ‘social actor’s’ point of view and who better to give it than the social actor himself/herself. The aim of the current research is to uncover the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language. The participatory nature of qualitative research therefore allows the researcher to access first-hand information, which is assumed more reliable than second hand information.

 Qualitative research is fundamentally interpretive. The interpretations would come from both linguistic and extra-linguistic features of data gathered. People might not say so much in words but there may be exhibition (or lack thereof) of certain actions or behaviours that becomes sources of data.

 Qualitative research design was also adopted because it produces descriptive data; people’s own written or spoken words and observable behaviour (Taylor & Bogdan 1984:5 as cited in Phaala 2006:80).

 Phaala (2006) argues that the significance of an act, gesture or word cannot be captured if it is divorced from its context. Qualitative research is thus context based. Proponents of this design argue that qualitative research and its contextual application offer access to a very valuable type of data, a deeper and richer understanding of people’s lives and behaviour, including some knowledge of their subjective experiences (Sullivan 2001:320).

4.4 RESEARCH SITE Sites for data gathering in any research are important and choosing the correct site cannot be overemphasised. Specific sites are chosen for specific reasons for example, one may have to consider the degree of accessibility and safety of the site. One may also consider the expected prevalence of the kind of data one will be looking for. Wrong choice of research site normally results in inadequate data and waste of time. For the present study, Binga was chosen as the research site. According to Makoni et

103 al. (2008), there are three groups of Tonga speakers situated on the Zambian, Zimbabwean and Mozambican sides. In Zimbabwe, Hachipola (1998) points out that a number of Tonga people are found in Kariba District (or Zambezi Valley), the Midlands districts of Gokwe and in Matabeleland North districts, specifically Hwange and Binga. However, Binga was chosen as the research site because of the concentrated population of Tonga speaking people in the area. According to Marowa (2010), Binga District houses about 75% of Zimbabwe’s Tonga speaking people. It was also chosen because of its contribution towards the development of the Tonga language. Binga District acts as the headquarters from which Tonga language development activities are not only controlled, but also initiated.

4.5 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY As already indicated in Chapter one, the study seeks to achieve the following objectives:

 Examine the motivation behind the development of the Tonga language.

 Examine the factors that have led to the development of Tonga.

 Take an ecological approach to examining the domains in which the Tonga language is used.

 Assess attitudes towards the Tonga language.

 Explore the language choice patterns exhibited by the Tonga people, and

 Assess the extent of the development thus far.

The nature of the objectives of any study is crucial in drawing parameters within which to work in terms of identification and focus of the research site, which further informs the population and sample of research. The research objectives also determine the relevant data gathering methods to be used. These research objectives influenced the population and sampling method for this study in the following way:

104

4.6 POPULATION Population in research is any group of people who exhibit traits, characteristics or behaviours, which informs the researcher’s study. The development of Tonga is assumed to have been a product of a number of civic society actors, publishing houses, academic institutions and the Tonga people themselves. The population for this study is therefore made up of different groups of social actors, which include among others, the following:

 Tonga chiefs from Binga district

 TOLACO committee members

 Basilizwi non-governmental organisation

 Silveira House – non-governmental organisation

 University of Zimbabwe, African Languages Department African Languages Research Institute.

 School headmasters and personnel working with the chiefs.

 Local teachers and pupils

 Local parents

4.7 SAMPLING Sampling in research is a procedure used to select appropriate observations or units of observations in research. Sampling techniques can be categorised into two: probability and non-probability sampling methods. Babbie (2005) contends that probability sampling remains the primary method of selecting large, representative samples for social research, but at the same time, probability sampling can be impossible or inappropriate in many research situations. A choice is made for probability sampling by some “mechanical” procedure involving lists of random numbers or equivalents (Doherty 1994). Results from the sample are expected to be the same as the results one would get if one surveys the whole population. Probability sampling as explained above would, however, pose problems in some situations in the current study. One such situation is the Binga Chiefs’ involvement in the development of Tonga. According to Nyika (2008) and Mumpande (2006), chiefs were very instrumental in the success we witness today in the revitalisation of Tonga, therefore, the importance of their input and contribution to the present study cannot be

105 over emphasized. However, of the 15 chiefs in Binga, only six participated and are still participating in the development of Tonga. This means that there was a great possibility of selecting chiefs who lack in-depth knowledge on the development of Tonga if random selection had been used. This explains the choice of non-probability sampling.

4.7.1 Nonprobability sampling

Unlike in probability sampling, a choice may be made invoking some element of judgement in nonprobability sampling. A number of researchers have come up with different types of non-probability sampling methods over the years. Gall et al. (1996) discuss the following methods, maximum variation, purposeful random, stratified purposeful and criterion sampling. On the other hand, Babbie (2005) discusses four methods, respectively named the following; reliance on available subjects, purposive or judgemental sampling, snowball sampling and quota sampling. Babbie’s sampling methods are going to be discussed briefly since the researcher adopted some of these sampling methods for this study.

4.7.1.1 Reliance on available subjects

This is a type of non-probability sampling whereby a researcher selects units that are available or accessible for the study. This method was used in the selection of schools since questionnaires were distributed to learners and teachers at schools. In Binga District, there are schools, which are situated in areas that are inaccessible because some areas are mountainous. The researcher therefore had to rely on schools, which were accessible by either road or foot. The same method was used in selecting villages to access information from parents.

4.7.1.2 Purposive or judgemental sampling

Babbie (2005:188) defines this as a type of non-probability sampling in which one selects the units to be observed on the basis of one’s own judgement about which ones will be most useful or representative. The choice can be based on one’s knowledge or assumed knowledge of the population and more importantly, on the aims and objectives of the study. The underlying assumption is that not everybody would

106 be equipped with the right information for the research and that not any site could be the right site. According to Neuman (2000), purposive/judgemental sampling is appropriate in three situations. One would use it to select:

a. unique cases that are especially informative

b. members of a difficult to reach specialised population

c. particular types of cases for in-depth investigation.

One of the objectives of the present study is to identify the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language. The suitable sample would therefore consist of people who have been involved or are involved in the process of developing this language in one way or another. These people are expected to know why they are developing this particular language. A number of non-governmental organisations are working in the Binga District but not all of them are contributing towards the development of Tonga language. Purposive/judgemental sampling was therefore used to select relevant non-governmental organisations that were and are still involved in the development of Tonga like Silveira House, Binga Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (BCCJP), to name a few. These are examples of unique cases that are especially informative and therefore chosen for in-depth investigation (Neuman 2000).

4.7.1.3 Snowball sampling

This is a nonprobability sampling method often employed in social research whereby each person interviewed may be asked to suggest additional people to be interviewed, appropriate when members of a special group are difficult to locate (Neuman 2000). In the current study, this was particularly useful in the selection of chiefs. The researcher was referred to Chief Sinansengwe as one of the chiefs actively involved in Tonga language issues. Chief Sinansengwe then further referred the researcher to the other chiefs he is working with. Snowball sampling was therefore useful in the selection of relevant chief informants. This also takes into cognisance the fact that some of the chiefs in Binga District deny being Tonga and therefore do not want to be involved in anything to do with Tonga (Nyika 2007, 2008), while some are sceptical about giving out information to total strangers.

4.7.1.4 Quota sampling

107

This is a type of non-probability sampling in which units are selected into a sample on the basis of pre-specific characteristics, so that the total sample will have the same distribution of characteristics assumed to exist in the population (Neuman 2002). Quota sampling was used on the selection of informants in terms of age and sex.

For this study, a purposive sampling technique is adopted as the main non-probability sampling method. This approach is chosen because informants for the research have to meet certain criteria. This enabled the researcher to sample informants with expertise in the area under study, or the right people who would provide the needed information, thus helping in the mapping of the focus of the study. Purposive sampling therefore helps in identifying who to interview, who or what to observe, who to administer a questionnaire to, but most importantly, it plays a critical role in identifying particular domains or areas of focus within the study. Informants for the study were people who were actively involved in the development of the Tonga language, people who adequately provided answers to set research questions. The sample was therefore drawn from the above listed groups in section 4.4 which outlines the population of the study. Information relevant to the research questions came from social and educational domains among other areas.

As can be deduced from the definitions of the four non-probability sampling methods discussed by Babbie (2005), these methods are not mutually exclusive. They have areas of overlap and because of this; the research drew informants by employing any one of the other three methods where it was necessary. For instance, the researcher used purposive sampling to select chiefs in Binga as informants due to their involvement in the advocacy and awareness campaigns and due to their roles as the custodians of Binga’s resources. Binga has some areas, which are located in different geographical locations, some of which were difficult to access. The other thing was that not all chiefs were equally involved in the revitalisation of the Tonga language. The researcher was introduced to one chief who was, and still is, involved in the development of the language. This chief then suggested other chiefs whom the researcher interviewed, thus using the snowball sampling method.

4.8 DATA COLLECTION One of the motivations for choosing the qualitative research design is its reliance on multiple data gathering methods. In social research, this is known as triangulation.

108

Bogdan & Biklen (1998) as cited in Willis (2007:219), have the following to say about triangulation:

Triangulation was first borrowed in the social sciences to convey the idea that to establish a fact, you need more than one source of information. When triangulation made its way into qualitative research, it carried its old meaning – verification of the facts – but picked up another one. It came to mean that many sources of data were better in a study than a single source because multiple sources lead to a fuller understanding of the phenomenon you are studying.

Triangulation is thus a method of dealing with issues of validity of data gathered and also ensuring that one gets enough information. For this study, therefore, three methods of data gathering namely interviews, questionnaires and documents were used.

4.8.1 Questionnaire As researchers go about gathering data for their research, they make use of questions and statements in order to solicit information. These questions are directly and physically asked by the researcher as in the interviews either discussed below or are sometimes written down so that respondents respond to the researcher’s questions in his/her absence by completing a given document, the questionnaire. This method of data gathering was used because it allowed for the collection of data from a wider section. The questionnaire is particularly important in soliciting information of a sensitive nature. In most cases, people are not willing to divulge such information. Bearing in mind the current political situation in Zimbabwe and the fact that nearly everything is politicised, most people are reluctant to say their views on anything that might politically implicate them. Language issues have also been politicised in Zimbabwe. It was therefore crucial to solicit information through questionnaires because confidentiality was assured through anonymity since the respondents were not asked to write their names on the questionnaires.

The questionnaire was completed by schoolchildren, teachers, parents and chiefs (see appendix i, ii, iii and iv). The researcher encountered a number of challenges during the administration of the questionnaire. Firstly, the questionnaire is not meant for the illiterate, which unfortunately accounts for a number of Tonga parents. Secondly, the questionnaire does not give the researcher an opportunity to probe or make follow-up questions. Neither does it give the researcher the chance to explain or clarify issues,

109 which the respondents might not fully understand. Some of these challenges were however, overcome by using the interview as another method of data gathering explained below.

4.8.2 Interview According to Corbetta (2003:265), an interview is a guided conversation in which the interviewer establishes the topic and ensures that the interview is conducted according to the cognitive aims set. It is therefore crucial for an interviewer to contact the right respondents for the interview, those whose answers would satisfy the cognitive aims set. Interviews range from structured, semi-structured to unstructured conversations and any of these forms is a means of gathering information. These forms of interviews require different skills from the interviewer. Generally, an interview, Sullivan (2001) explains, is a social relationship and the quality and quantity of information exchanged depends on how astute and creative the interviewer is at understanding and managing that relationship.

For the purpose of this study, both structured and unstructured interviews were used. The idea of structure in interviews has to do with how flexible the interviewer is in conducting the research in terms of asking questions. For structured interviews, the interviewer asks the same set of questions in the same sequence for all interviewees. This structured interview method was chosen for the following reasons:

 The fact that all the respondents are asked the same question ensures the reliability of the data gathered.

 The structured interview affords the interviewer the chance to assess and see whether the questions asked are understood by the interviewees. If not, the interviewee can clarify any misconceptions. It is crucial for both the interviewer and the interviewee to interpret and give the same meaning to the questions in order to get appropriate feedback from questions asked. The right respondents may be interviewed, but extracting the right response depends largely on whether the questions asked are interpreted in the intended way.

 The presence of the interviewer allows for control over factors not controlled by other techniques such that the respondent does not

110

consult with or is not influenced by other people before responding (Sullivan 2001:269).

 The social relationship created between the interviewer and the interviewee can help in ensuring that interviewees give complete and accurate information.

In some instances, however, one might find that structured interviews appear to be too formal, to such an extent that informants do not express themselves freely. In such cases, use of unstructured interviews will become handy. These could be used as follow-up interviews to structured interviews. Their main advantage is that they normally take place under relaxed environments and this allows the researcher to gain insight into the respondents’ feelings, attitudes and even concerns with regards to their language.

4.8.3 Material culture - Documents Modern society is a society that documents itself continually. There is no institutional act, or socially organised activity that does not leave behind some documentary trace. This means that there is no phenomenon in the life of society that cannot be studied through the analysis of documents. Corbetta (2003:307)

Material culture includes artefacts and written documents that may be available in or about the setting or about individuals. They may include documents, minutes of meetings, newspaper articles – anything relevant that may reveal information about a person, setting, event, etc. (Rossman & Rossman 2003:172). A document is any written material that informs on any social, historical or scientific phenomenon. It is assumed that there are reports, minutes of meetings held, newspaper articles and other written materials with information that is relevant to the present study. Despite the fact that these documents were produced for purposes other than social research, and that they are produced independent of the researcher, they are going to be utilized as sources of data in the current study.

The fact that these documents are produced independent of the researcher offers a number of advantages:

111

 Documents produce data that is non-reactive. This means that they are not influenced by the social relationship between the researcher and the subject under study. This goes a long way in ensuring validity and reliability of data.

 Since data is not influenced by the researcher-subject interaction, the data is therefore naturalistic.

 It is natural that people die or relocate to other areas; documents can thus be used to replace inaccessible subjects.

 Another benefit of using documents according to Sullivan (2001) is the fact that they allow for longitudinal analysis. Documents can be collected over a number of years. With such longitudinal data, trend analysis (changing patterns over time) can be achieved. The development of the Tonga language was not a once-off event, but a process. Looking at documents (reports, minutes, etc.) is likely to portray a reliable picture of that process.

4.9 DATA ANALYSIS A multi-dimensional approach to data analysis will be adopted. An interpretive approach will be used to analyse data obtained from material culture. Hen et al. (2006:99) explain that documents… “need to be read and interpreted to bring out the evidence that is within them”. In particular, content analysis is going to be adopted as a tool for analysis. Content analysis refers to a method of transferring the symbolic content of a document or medium such as words or other images from a qualitative unsystematic form into a quantitative systematic form (Krippendorff 1980, Roberts 1997, Weber 1990 as cited in Sullivan 2001). Importance is placed on the following tenets of content analysis:

 Coding

 Categorising

Categorising in content analysis should be exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Categorising has to be exhaustive in the sense that a category should be available for every relevant element in the documents. However, each coded item should fall into only one category, which means categories should be clearly defined to avoid

112 situations whereby an item would fall into more than one category. Such a scenario would impact negatively on the issue of reliability.

 Units of analysis

According to Sullivan (2001:298), generally there are four units of analysis in document coding, a word, a theme, a major character or a sentence or paragraph. The choice on which unit of analysis to adopt will depend on the data collected. There are, however, basic considerations to take when choosing a unit of analysis. Larger units are often more theoretically relevant in social sciences and meaning in social interactions normally arises from a whole block of words or sentences (Ibid). Statistical descriptives on the data gathered (numbers that are used to summarise and describe the data) were drawn using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

These analytic strategies are used within the framework of language policy and planning, particularly Critical Language Policy (CLP) and an Ecological Approach. Domain Analysis (Fishman 1964), will also be used to explore institutional contexts where one language variety (or language) is more likely to be appropriate than another.

4.10 TRUSTWORTHINESS AND RIGOUR Issues of reliability and quality assurance are crucial in any research. However, methods of evaluating these differ depending on the research design adopted. Trustworthiness and rigour in this research was guaranteed through triangulation and participant validation.

 Triangulation:

Triangulation was first used in the social sciences to convey the idea that to establish a fact, you need more than one source of information. When triangulation made its way into qualitative research, it carried its old meaning – verification of the facts- but picked up another one. It came to mean that many sources of data were better in a study than a single source because multiple sources lead to a fuller understanding of the phenomenon you are studying (Bogdan & Biklen 1998:104).

Through triangulation, the researcher made use of diverse sources of data obtained through purposive sampling. Different data gathering tools that augment one another

113 were also used since no single tool could effectively capture the data needed in the study. A multi-dimensional approach to data analysis was also adopted to meet the various analytical needs of the data obtained. Both data triangulation (using more than one source to confirm data) and method triangulation (using more than one method to confirm data) were therefore employed in order to access information from different angles thereby providing validity or support for a finding.

 Participant validation: participant validation, also known as member checks is a process done in social research where the researcher invites participants to collaborate, correct and extend the findings and emerging conclusions from the study. Participant validation for this research was done at intervals, firstly eight months after data collection, then secondly one year and two months later.

Both triangulation and participant validation helped the researcher in obtaining relevant data for the study and prevented the researcher from reaching unsupported conclusions. In simple terms, this helped validate the data collected and the conclusions reached.

4.11 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Social research deals with interaction between and among human beings in particular environments. Where human beings are concerned, issues of rights and infringement of rights become crucial. Ethical issues are therefore issues of morality. Under this premise, the researcher is obliged to take into consideration issues of ethical obligations, should be aware of proper channels to follow when doing research which will not impact negatively on his/her research.

A number of ethical issues in social research have been discussed in literature (Sullivan 2001, Babbie 2005,). The following issues are among the most crucial:

 Informed consent

 Right to privacy (anonymity & confidentiality)

 Deception

 Harm or distress to participants

 Protecting vulnerable groups, and

114

 Withholding treatment for research purposes.

These issues revolve around the researcher’s ethical responsibility to the participants together with their communities. In terms of the researcher’s ethical responsibilities towards the communities from which she collected data, permission was sought from the relevant people as discussed below.

For the researcher to fulfil these obligations, this research was primarily guided by the standard practice of ethical professionalism as required by the University of Johannesburg. Draft questionnaires and consent letters were submitted to the Humanities Ethics Committee for approval. Fieldwork only started after the approval of the ethics documents by the committee. In the field, permission was first orally sought from the community heads and chiefs. Clearance letters were also sought from the Binga District Education Officer before any work could commence. The purpose of the study was fully explained to respondents and the researcher ensured that the respondents were willing to participate before they could sign the letter of consent (see appendix vi).

4.12 CONCLUSION In this chapter, the researcher has given an overview of the nature of the study, the research design and outlined the strategies or data collection methods employed. An outline of the motivation for choosing the research design and data collection methods used is also given. Canons for trustworthiness and vigour, together with issues of ethics were also discussed. The next chapter focuses on data presentation and analysis.

115

CHAPTER FIVE

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

5.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter Five is dedicated to the presentation and analysis of the findings of this study. Data obtained through questionnaires, interviews and material culture is presented. The questionnaire items were mainly meant to solicit information from four categories of informants namely chiefs, parents, teachers and children from school going age. Interviews were also carried out with informants in the same categories in addition to interviews with informants from civic society. Findings are presented for the following three research questions indicated in Chapter 1 and an analysis thereof would follow:

 What is the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language?

 What factors have contributed to this linguistic development?

 What is the extent of the development of Tonga?

5.2 INFORMANTS’ SOCIO-LINGUISTIC PROFILE The sample for this study included both males and females of ages ranging from seven to over 60 years. The sample was also drawn from different lifestyles, that is, from informants with diverse levels of education and diverse in terms of their mother tongue. This information is considered important in this study because it is assumed that such variables might influence the study. Tables below indicate the composition of three categories since the chief and parents categories have been merged into one. The statistical information

5.2.1 Category 1: chiefs and parents 5.2.1.1 Parents: Gender composition Binga District has 15 chiefs but only six chiefs participated in this study because these are the ones who are actively involved in the development of the Tonga language. As indicated in the table below, all six chiefs are males since chieftaincy is patriarchal in this area. The chiefs also have children, which is why they are in the same category with parents. For the non-chief parents, the sample includes both males and females and the researcher tried to balance numbers for the purposes of gender equity since linguistic issues affect both males and females.

116

Category M F

N % N % N %

Chiefs 6 14.7 6 27.3 0 0

Parents 35 85.3 16 72.7 19 100

TOTAL 41 100 22 100 19 100

Table 19: Gender composition of parents as per chiefs who are parents and other parents 5.2.1.2 Parents: Level of education The education system in Zimbabwe is aligned to the British system of education, an indication of the many systems that independent Zimbabwe simply inherited from its former colonisers. The system is divided into primary, secondary and tertiary education. Primary level stretches from Grade One to Grade Seven. When learners complete the primary level, they move on to the secondary level, which is divided, into two, i.e. the Ordinary Level, which is Form One to Form Four. At the end of Form Four, an Ordinary Level examination is taken and one needs to pass at least five subjects, including English with a Grade C or better. With a full Ordinary Level certificate, one has the option of either enrolling at a tertiary college to acquire a certificate or diploma in various trades, or proceeds to Advanced Level, depending on the strength of their Ordinary Level passes. The Advanced Level consists of Form Five and Six. At the end of Form Six, an Advanced Level examination is taken and with good passes, one can proceed to university. Beyond the secondary level is tertiary education, from which one can attain certificates, diplomas and degrees through a tertiary college or university. Parents’ level of education distribution is indicated in the table below.

LEVEL N %

Below Ordinary level 19 46.3

Ordinary level 12 29.3

Advanced level 3 7.3

Certificate/Diploma 7 17.1

Degree 0 0

117

TOTAL 41 100

Table 20: Parents' Level of Education The majority of parents, that is, 46.3%, do not have an Ordinary Level certificate and from Table 24 above, there is no indication of parents with degrees. This does not, however, mean that there are no parents with degrees in Binga. Through interviews done, it was realised that there were a number of people with degrees, but they work outside Binga, in the towns where job prospects are high. Such people could therefore not form part of this research.

5.2.1.3 Parents: Mother Tongue Composition The sample of parents used in this study shows that the linguistic ecology of Binga District boasts of several languages used in this district as indicated below:

LANGUAGE N %

Ndebele 5 12.2

Shona 3 7.3

Sotho 1 2.4

Tonga 29 70.7

Tswana 3 7.3

Other 0 0

TOTAL 41 100

Table 21: Parents' Mother Tongue Composition Information gathered indicates that Binga is a multilingual district. The table above indicates that the majority of parents (70.7%) involved in the research were mother tongue speakers of the Tonga language. The remaining percentage is comprised of a number of other languages. The presence of these other languages may impact on revitalisation of Tonga, particularly on the issue of intergenerational language transmission.

5.2.2 Category 2: teachers The sample consisted of 34 teachers, 15 males and 19 females ranging between the ages of 20 and 50 years of age. The teachers hold diverse qualifications and their mother tongues are diverse as well.

118

5.2.2.1 Teacher qualifications The teachers hold high academic and professional qualifications and the majority of them are professionally trained. Due to their academic and professional qualifications, the assumption was that they would give in-depth information particularly on educational issues. According to Murungudzi (2009), teachers would be able to draw from their training and experience, especially on issues regarding pedagogical beliefs and perceived difficulties or benefits associated with the language of learning and teaching.

QUALIFICATION N %

Degree 5 14.7

Diploma in Education 18 53

Student teacher on 4 11.8 attachment

Temporary teachers with 7 20.5 A level certificate

TOTAL 34 100

Table 22: Teacher Qualifications 5.2.2.2 Teachers: Mother tongue composition The data solicited from teachers indicate that generally, four languages are in use as mother tongue languages for the teachers in the sample and these are Kalanga, Tonga, Shona and Ndebele.

LANGUAGE N %

Kalanga 6 17.6

Ndebele 7 20.6

Shona 10 29.4

Tonga 11 32.4

TOTAL 34 100

Table 23: Teachers' Mother Tongue Composition The table above shows that the majority of teachers are Tonga speakers. Teachers with non-Tonga mother language constitute quite a substantive percentage (67.6%).

119

This can be attributed to the shortage of trained Tonga-speaking teachers, as well as the teacher deployment approach, which does not take into consideration teachers’ linguistic competences.

5.2.3 Category 3: Learners For this category, it should be noted that the sample mainly consisted of primary and high school level learners, with age ranges of between six and 25. There were no students from tertiary colleges and universities available because they were at their respective colleges and universities outside Binga District (there is no tertiary college or university in Binga).

5.2.3.1 Learners: Gender Composition According to Basilwizi Trust (2010), the girl child had been disadvantaged in terms of education opportunities. The researcher however made an effort to balance the number of boys and girls for the purpose of this research as indicated in the table below.

Category N %

Female 29 48.3

Male 31 51.7

TOTAL 60 100

Table 24: Learners' Gender Composition 5.2.3.2 Learners: Level of Education Questionnaires were administered to learners from Grade Five because it was assumed that they would not have problems filling in the questionnaire. For the lower grades, the learners were interviewed.

LEVEL OF EDUCATION N %

Primary school 20 33.3

Ordinary level 26 43.3

Advanced level 14 23.3

TOTAL 60 100

Table 25: Learners' Level of Education

120

As indicated in Section 5.1.3, only learners from primary and secondary level were used as informants for the study and no informants from tertiary level were involved. This is due to the fact that data was gathered during school days and since there are no universities and tertiary colleges in Binga, learners at tertiary level were out of Binga.

5.2.3.3 Learners: Language composition Binga District is found in Matabeleland North Province and Tonga is spoken in Matabeleland North Province as well as in Matabeleland South Province. However, in terms of learner composition, there are also learners who come from outside Tonga speaking areas, in most cases, accompanying their parents who would have found employment in Binga, particularly in schools, hospitals and the police force. Five learners, constituting 12.2% of the learners who participated in this study were born outside Matabeleland North Province, one in Mashonaland and four in Matabeleland South Province. This explains the presence of languages other than Tonga for learners in Binga. The table below makes a comparison of the learners’ language composition in terms of home language, mother tongue and first language. In this thesis, home language is taken to mean the language that people use to communicate in within the home environment. Mother tongue is taken to mean the first language that one speaks, usually with culture, ethnicity and motherland connotations. First language is the language that one feels can communicate best in.

LANGUAGE MOTHER TONGUE HOME LANGUAGE FIRST LANGUAGE

N % N % N %

English 0 0 0 0 1 1.7

Ndebele 6 10 5 8.3 5 8.3

Shona 2 3.3 2 3.3 2 3.3

Tonga 52 86.7 53 88.4 52 86.7

TOTAL 60 100 60 100 60 100

Table 26: Learners' Language Composition Comparison in terms of Home Language, Mother Tongue and First Language

For this category, there was not much variation on language use between the mother tongue, home language and first language as shown in the table above. The majority

121 of the learners (88.4%, 86.7% and 86.7%) use the Tonga language as their home, mother and first language respectively. This scenario points to positive intergenerational transmission of the Tonga language in Binga.

5.2.3.4 Conclusion Section 5.2 presented the socio-linguistic data of the informants used in this study. This socio-linguistic profile has a bearing on the objectives of this study, which aims to unravel the motivation for the development of Tonga and also what has been done to necessitate this development. For all the three categories of informants, i.e. parents, learners and teachers, there was gender balance, except for the category for chiefs due to its patriarchal nature. Issues of gender are crucial in language planning because both males and females are important actors in the implementation and management of language planning policies. Categories were also represented in terms of different age groups, which are significant in intergenerational transmission of Tonga and its vitality. The different levels of education and different professions are crucial in unravelling technical issues around revitalisation as they might, in some cases act as discourses of authority. The following section 5.3 now provides the presentation and analysis of the findings of the study.

5.3 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Information obtained from the data gathering strategies were meant to address the following major research questions:

 What is the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language?  What factors have contributed to this linguistic development?  What is the extent of the development of Tonga?

In the sections below, data gathered from the current research that deal with the above three questions will be presented as per each question, followed by analysis of the findings. Information was obtained from the three categories of informants, which are, learners, teachers and parents.

5.3.1 What is the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language? One of the aims of this research was to find the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language. In order to solicit information from the learners, parents and teachers in Binga that deal with the reasons for the revitalisation of Tonga,

122 questionnaires were administered (Appendix i, ii, & iii) with sub-questions (a) to (m) presented below.

(a) What would you say is the home language/s that you currently speak in your home? (Questionnaire for learners question 8, Parents question 9 & Teachers question 7. See Appendix i, ii & iii respectively).

Information was gathered through questionnaires and interviews. Responses will be presented according to the three categories of informants, starting with responses from the learners.

LANGUAGE N %

Ndebele 5 8.3

Shona 2 3.3

Tonga 53 88.4

TOTAL 60 100

Table 27: Home Language for Learners The findings indicate that three languages are used by learners as home language. Figures in the above table shows that the majority of the learners (88.4%) who participated in this study use Tonga as their home language, and the least used language (3.3%) is Shona. The presence of languages other than Tonga in Tonga speaking areas is partly a result of non-Tonga people working in Binga district.

Just like the learners, the majority of parents speak Tonga as home language. The table below shows home language distribution for parents.

LANGUAGE N %

Ndebele 8 19.5

Shona 4 9.6

Tonga 29 70.7

TOTAL 41 100

Table 28: Home Language for Parents

123

Although Binga is a predominantly Tonga speaking district, other languages constitute a significant percentage of home use in Binga. Ndebele constitutes quite a substantive percentage as indicated in Table 32 above. This can negatively impact on the transmission of Tonga from one generation to another, particularly since it is the parents who are expected to pass on the language to their children.

Home language distribution for teachers also indicates the use of various languages. As alluded to in Table 27, these diverse languages account for teachers who come from non-Tonga speaking areas but were deployed to Binga when they completed their teacher-training course.

LANGUAGE N %

Shona 8 23.5

Ndebele 14 41.2

Tonga 12 35.3

TOTAL 34 100

Table 29: Home Language for Teachers Out of a total of 34 teachers who participated in this study, only 12 teachers who constitute 35.3% of the teacher sample use Tonga as a home language. This is in direct contrast to the parents and also learners that these teachers teach, of which 88.49% and 70.7% (see Table 31 & 32) respectively use Tonga as a home language. The majority of the teachers (41.2%) speak Ndebele and the remaining 23.5% speak Shona as their home language. Of the 22 teachers who speak Shona and Ndebele, eight of them indicated that although they are in Tonga speaking communities, they do not intend to learn Tonga. The remaining 14 teachers have varying degrees of linguistic competence in Tonga. In circumstances where a teacher does not speak the language of the learners that he or she is teaching, it means these learners cannot use their language as a language of teaching and learning. The effects of such a scenario are discussed in detail later in section 5.3.2.2 (c).

(b) What would you say is your first language? (This is the language you feel you can communicate best in. Please note that it could be the same as your home language)

124

The table below shows the responses for the above question from the learners’ questionnaire, Question 9, Appendix i.

LANGUAGE N %

English 1 1.7

Ndebele 5 8.3

Shona 2 3.3

Tonga 52 86.7

TOTAL 60 100

Table 30: First Language for Learners The figures in the above table show that the majority of learners who participated in this study are comfortable in using Tonga and Tonga therefore becomes their first language. It is also notable that for the learners, there is a relationship between the language of home and the first language, that is, the language they use at home and the language they can communicate best in. This may have positive implications in moulding children’s attitude towards their language as well the transmission of the language to future generations.

The table below shows the responses from the parents’ questionnaire, Question 10 (Appendix ii).

LANGUAGE N %

English 2 4.9

Ndebele 5 12.2

Shona 3 7.3

Sotho 1 2.4

Tonga 27 65.9

Tswana 3 7.3

TOTAL 41 100

Table 31: First Language for Parents

125

From the table above, it should be noted that there are a number of languages English, Sotho and Tswana as first languages for parents. What is noteworthy is that these three languages do not feature as home languages, neither for the parents themselves, nor as parents’ preference for their children. The researcher, in trying to understand this scenario, asked these parents why they would not use the language they are comfortable with at home and pass it on to their children through intergenerational transmission. The majority of parents said that they were staying in Binga because of inter-ethnic marriages and that because they were married to Tonga husbands, their children should learn and speak Tonga, hence the use of Tonga in the home and its preference for children’s home language. This defines the patterns indicated on learners’ home language and first language where the majority of learners 88.4% and 86.7% respectively use Tonga (see table 30).

The table below shows the responses from the teachers’ questionnaire, Question 8 (Appendix iii).

LANGUAGE N %

English 2 5.9

Kalanga 6 17.6

Shona 5 14.7

Ndebele 10 29.4

Tonga 11 32.4

TOTAL 34 100

Table 32: First Language for Teachers The table above shows that teachers are linguistically competent in diverse languages. Although Tonga has the highest number of speakers, on average it constitutes a small percentage considering the fact that the research site is predominantly Tonga speaking. Only 32.4% of the teachers in the sample speak Tonga as their first language. Teachers’ language competence impacts on the language of teaching and learning as well as the use of the language in higher spheres or domains as discussed in Section 5.3.2.2 (c).

126

(c)What language do you want your children or grandchildren to use at home? (Appendix ii, Question 13)

This question was directed at parents. The teachers’ responses were not taken into consideration since a number of them did not come from the Tonga speaking Binga District.

LANGUAGE N %

English 3 7.3

Ndebele 4 9.6

Shona 3 7.3

Sotho 1 2.4

Tonga 30 73.1

TOTAL 41 100

Table 33: Parents' Preference for Home Language for Children and Grandchildren The majority of the parents (73.1%) as shown in the table above indicate that they want their children and grandchildren to use Tonga in the home and a few indicated that they would prefer English (7.3%), Ndebele (9.6%), Shona (7.3%) and Sotho (2.4%). When the parents were asked to motivate their preference, a number of reasons were put forward. The three parents who prefer English as home language for their children and grandchildren indicated that English would make it easy for them to communicate with people from other tribes without learning their various languages. One of the three parents argued that his children and grandchildren would only learn English and this would shift the burden of learning many languages off their shoulders and make it easier for them to understand teachers who come from other districts and provinces. Magwa (2008) carried out a study on parents, learners and teachers preference for language of instruction in the classroom. Some of the parents from his study echoed similar sentiments revealed by this one parent in the current study. These parents according to Magwa (2008) argued that Zimbabwe is a mixed society with so many languages being spoken; hence, it is only English, which is a neutral language. The implication here is that if learners use English, the neutral language, then there would be no need for them to learn the other languages in the Zimbabwean

127 linguistic ecology. This use of a neutral language has its advantages and disadvantages, which were discussed in section 2.8.

For the parents who preferred the use of Tonga as home language for their children and grandchildren, the majority of them (97%) argued that this was their mother tongue and for that mere reason, it should be used as their home language. 80% of the parents argued that Tonga is the language that their children understand because it is the language used and understood by their parents and grandparents and therefore should be used as home language. Another 80% of the parents brought in issues of culture as a reason for their preference. They do not want their culture to die so they want to keep it alive by keeping Tonga alive. For them, this in other words means that failing to use their language, especially in the home, is tantamount to literally killing their culture. Consequently, keeping Tonga alive and in use is keeping the Tonga culture active.

Seven parents who participated in the study want their children and grandchildren to use Tonga in the home because it is a mark of their identity. Through interviews, one elderly parent had this to say, (I am Tonga because I speak Tonga. If you do not know Tonga, then how would you know the secrets of the Tonga people, who they really are, their culture embedded in the Tonga language? We can only pass on these secrets to our children through our own language, any other language would not be appropriate).

One parent from the sample raised the issue of empowerment and argued that self- empowerment begins with identity, which is influenced by language. She further argued that today’s children do not know who they are because they have lost their cultures, their languages and alongside that, self-confidence and self-esteem. She gave an example of the Ndebele and the Shona people whom she argued are proud of their languages and that the pride gives them confidence.

128

(d) What language do your parents want you to use at home? (Appendix i Question 13).

The above question was directed at learners only and the responses given are shown in the table below.

LANGUAGE N %

English 7 11.7

Ndebele 8 13.3

Shona 3 5

Tonga 42 70

TOTAL 60 100

Table 34: Parents' Preference on Children's Home Language- children's responses 70% of the learners indicated that their parents want them to speak Tonga in the home. The figures more or less agree with the parents’ response (Table 37) to their preferred home language for their children. Although there were only three parents who preferred English as home language for their children, seven children, constituting 11.7%, indicated that their parents want them to use English. There is a possibility therefore, that a number of parents in Binga prefer English as home language for their children. If this happens over a period, then this would mean the emergence of English not only as home language, but ultimately as mother tongue to future generations. This would also mean that the Ndebele-Shona hegemonic tendencies would be diminished in favour of English. With such a scenario however, the status of the Tonga language would remain low. It would still be dominated. The only difference now would be that instead of being dominated by three languages, it would now be dominated by English only. This language arrangement is subtractive in nature. Through intergenerational language transmission, this will ultimately remove Tonga.

(e) When you have children of your own one day, would you use Tonga language as your home language with them? (Appendix i, Question 14)

The above question was directed at learners. In response, 75% of the learners answered “Yes” to the above question, 24.4% answered “No” and 2.6% could not

129

make up their minds. The majority of the learners therefore prefer Tonga as home language for themselves and their future families. This shows a great degree of consistency between the majority of the parents and the learners’ preference for home language. The intergenerational consistence lays a good foundation for the Tonga people to push forward the agenda for the revitalisation of their language.

(f) I feel proud talking in Tonga

The above question was directed at learners (Question 11) and parents (Question 15) and their responses are captured in the table below.

Category Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Total disagree agree agree nor disagree

N 1 3 2 7 28 41

Parent % 2.4 7.3 4.9 17.1 68.3 100 s

N 2 3 5 23 27 60

Learne % 3.3 5 8.3 38.4 45 100 rs

Table 35: Parents and Learners' Responses regarding their pride with Tonga Both parents and learners’ responses show that a profound majority of the informants feel proud speaking in Tonga, with 85.4% and 83.3% respectively. 9.7 % of the parents and 8.3% of the learners indicate that they do not feel proud speaking in Tonga. The remaining 4.9% of the parents and 8.4% of the learners neither agree nor disagree with the statement. One’s attitude towards his or her language, together with other factors, has a significant impact on the survival or death of that particular language.

When asked to give reasons for their responses to the above question, various responses were given as reasons for feeling proud speaking in Tonga. Informants were not restricted to a particular number of reasons. They therefore gave as many as they could think of, with the highest number being five reasons from one informant. The researcher categorised the responses as follows:

130

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES N %

1 Tonga is their home language 44 44.4

2 It is the language they feel comfortable communicating in 79 78.2

3 Tonga language marks who they are 81 81.8

4 Pride in the language makes it easy for the Tonga people to 7.1 47.5 maintain it

5 Being proud of speaking another language would be betraying their 65 65.7 identity

6 Being proud of speaking another language would be looking down 30 30.3 upon Tonga language

7 Tonga is just like any other language 47 47.5

8 Happy to know many languages as it makes it easy to 10 10.1 communicate with other people in multi-lingual Zimbabwe (response coming from people who are non-Tonga ethnic speakers)

9 Tonga makes it easier to grasp concepts taught in class. 45 45.5

Table 36: Reasons why Parents and Learners feel proud talking in Tonga Although the reasons are very diverse, each acts in its own way in bringing the Tonga people together in terms of their attitude towards their language. Those who indicated that they do not feel proud speaking in Tonga also had their reasons. The following reasons were given by informants who did not feel proud speaking in Tonga:

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES N %

Tonga language is not a language of wider communication 3 3

Other languages are spoken in many areas unlike Tonga which is only 3 3 spoken in few areas

It is difficult for most people to speak Tonga 2 2

Tonga language is not accommodative/cannot be used with many people 4 4

Our teachers say Tonga is not a good language 3 3

Our teachers say that if we want good jobs we must speak English better 5 5.1 than Tonga

131

Table 37: Reasons why Learners do not feel proud talking in Tonga It is noteworthy that the learners’ negative feeling towards speaking in Tonga is generally attributed to the fact that Tonga is not a language of wider communication. The negative attitude can also be attributed to the teachers’ attitudes towards the language. Learners look up to their teachers and take what they say seriously. This could mean that teachers have the potential to influence learners’ attitude towards languages.

(g) I feel proud now that Tonga is examined at Grade 7 level and taught as a subject at secondary school level (Appendix i Question15, ii Question 24, iii Question 22). This statement was directed at all the three categories of informants in this study. Table 42 below indicates the combined responses from the three categories.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Total Category disagree agree nor agree disagree

Parents 1 3 0 7 30 41

Teachers 0 1 1 3 29 34

Learners 1 1 1 24 33 60

Total 2 5 2 34 92 135

% 1.5 3.7 1.5 25.2 68.1 100

Table 38: Parents, Teachers and Learners' Responses to how they feel about Tonga being examined at Grade 7 and taught as a subject at secondary school level The figures from the above table show that an overwhelming number of informants is proud of the fact that Tonga is now examined at Grade 7 and is now being taught at secondary school level. Only seven informants out of 135 did not agree with the given statement. Three reasons were given for this response. These informants indicated that they were comfortable with English, Ndebele and Shona as official languages. The implication here is that introducing Tonga to higher levels of the education domain will be elevating it to the status of English, Ndebele and Shona and these informants are not comfortable with such status. Another reason given is that learners would not fit in other societies if they could not understand other languages. This was put forward

132 under the premise that learners only do one local language at school. Lastly, they see no space for the Tonga language in the business environment.

The informants who indicated that they agreed with the given statement gave their reasons in Table 43 below. The percentage is calculated based on the total number of informants, which is 135.

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES N %

1 Tonga is being recognised at national level and the Tonga 93 69 people are now recognised as a people in Zimbabwe/Zimbabwean people

2 It nurtures and promotes Tonga as a tool for communication 77 57

3 It promotes a desire within learners to learn the language 80 59.2

4 It makes it easier for learners to pass their Ordinary level 99 73.3

5 It is a positive move towards keeping Tonga alive 35 26

6 It means Tonga is being developed 30 22

7 Tonga is being kept alive by teaching the language to the youth 57 42

8 Ndebele and Shona are difficult subjects for most students so 90 67 this gives them an opportunity to pass a local language

9 Now the Tonga people are learning their language just like 13 10 other people (Ndebeles and Shonas)

10 People who learn Tonga at secondary school level will get 86 64 employed easily because there are few Tonga teachers

11 Tonga is now being treated like Ndebele and Shona and is no 21 16 longer referred to as a minority language, which is discriminatory

Table 39: Reasons why Parents, Learners and Teachers feel proud now that Tonga is examined at Grade 7 Reasons given in the above table indicate that reasons for the parents, learners and teachers pride in the examination of Tonga at Grade 7 are diverse. Most categories of responses as indicated in items 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 are concerned with the advantages, to the learner, of using Tonga in the education domain. Other reasons bring about the ideas of Tonga recognition and development.

133

(h) Your children/learners have a positive attitude towards the learning of Tonga (Appendix ii Question 27 and iii Question24)

This statement was directed at parents and teachers. 100% of the teachers agree that the learners have a positive attitude towards learning Tonga. Only one parent out of forty-one parents disagreed with the statement.

(i) Your learners enjoy being taught using Tonga as the language of instruction (Appendix iii Question 32)

This statement was directed at teachers only and all teachers were supposed to respond regardless of the subject that they are teaching and their ethnic group. Three teachers who constitute 8.8% of the teacher category did not respond. The rest responded and indicated that learners enjoy being taught using Tonga as the language of instruction. In explaining why learners enjoy being taught using Tonga as a medium of instruction, the teachers gave the following reasons:

CATEGORY OF RESPONSES N %

Learners understand better when concepts are explained in Tonga 29 94

They feel at home when they get instructions in a familiar language 25 81

Participation in class is high when using Tonga than when using 31 100 English

Even slow learners actively participate when the language of 30 97 learning and teaching is Tonga

Generally learners show enthusiasm for learning 30 97

Some of the learners do not understand English 15 48

Learners find it easier to express themselves in their own language 29 94

Learners easily communicate their feelings and thoughts 3 9.7

Learners do not easily forget what they learn in their own language 2 6.5

If you do not want learners to participate in class, use English 11 35

Table 40: Teachers' reasons why Learners enjoy being taught in Tonga When learners were asked if they understand easily when their teachers use Tonga in the classroom, the majority of the learners, constituting 73.2%, agreed. This concurs

134 with most of the reasons given above by teachers. However, when the learners were asked which language they want their teachers to use in the classroom, 68.3% preferred English while only 31.7% of the learners preferred Tonga. When teachers were asked what language they think pupils would prefer as the language of teaching and learning, 94.7% thought that learners would prefer Tonga. Although there is a correlation between the teachers’ preferred language for learners and what is happening in the classroom, the learners’ choice of learning and teaching language was not only different from the teachers’ preference and in contrast to what happens in the classroom, but also contradicted the learners’ response to item (f) above where the majority indicated that they feel proud talking in Tonga. The majority of the learners (68.3%) indicated that they wanted their teachers to teach them using English and the remaining 31.7% indicated that they would prefer Tonga as the language of teaching and learning. This shows that although the learners are proud of their language, they however would rather use it in the home domain and not the school domain. This could be because the learners feel that this is the only way to be acquainted with English.

(j) If using Tonga as a language of instruction, what advantages has it brought into the classroom? (Appendix iii Question 28).

This question was directed at the teachers only and it sought to assess the advantages of using Tonga as a language of instruction. Its usage is not limited to the teaching of Tonga as a subject but any other subject offered in the schools curricular. All teachers who are competent in using Tonga indicated that they use the language in the classroom for teaching purposes and indicated that they derive the following advantages in using the language:

CATEGORY OF RESPONSES N %

1 Learners easily understand and follow instructions 30 86

2 Learners understand better when concepts are explained in Tonga 25 74 than English

3 There is enthusiasm for learning from the learners 25 74

135

4 Using Tonga in the classrooms encourages teacher-learner as well 29 85.3 as learner-learner interaction

Table 41: Advantages of using Tonga as Language of Learning and Teaching- Teachers' Responses Although the above advantages are derived from using Tonga as a language of instruction, teachers also indicated that using the language has its challenges. The challenges are shown below.

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES N %

1 Language interference particularly in English spellings 7 21

2 Learners fail to translate from Tonga to English and end up failing 21 62 assessments and examinations

3 Some technical terms do not have Tonga lexical equivalents and it 19 56 becomes difficult to teach them in Tonga

4 In as much as it is easier for learners to grasp concepts in Tonga, 5 15 examinations for all subjects except Tonga are in English and students find it difficult to explain in English the concepts taught in Tonga

Table 42: Disadvantages of using Tonga as LOLT - Teachers' Responses (k) Do you think that it is possible to use Tonga as a language of instruction in tertiary colleges and universities? (Appendix ii, Question 25, iii Question 35).

This question was directed at parents and teachers. 93.3% of the parents answered “YES” to the question and 70.6% of the teachers answered “YES”. When asked to justify why they think that it is possible to use Tonga as medium of instruction in tertiary colleges and universities, the following reasons were given:

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES N %

1 Tonga is just like any other language used as medium of 56 75 instruction in higher and tertiary education

2 If Tonga is used in universities in Zambia, why can it not be used 20 27 for the same purpose in Zimbabwe?

136

3 Shona is being used up to university level, so can Tonga 4 5.3

4 Tonga bears the same respect as any other language 36 48

5 That is the only way the Tonga language and culture can be 2 2.7 upgraded

6 Other countries use local languages as languages of instruction 10 13.3

Table 43: Reasons for the possibility of Tonga as LOLT at Tertiary Colleges and Universities The parents and teachers who answered “NO” to the above question stated that it is impossible to use Tonga as the language of instruction in tertiary colleges and universities because of the following reasons:

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES N %

1 There are no learning materials for that level written in Tonga 5 6.7

2 Tonga is a local language unlike languages like English which are 12 16 internationally recognised

3 It would be impossible to teach any other subject except Tonga 4 5.3 using Tonga because Tonga lacks equivalent terminology for most technical terms

4 Tonga is a low status language 13 17.3

5 Learning in Tonga would restrict their children’s chances of getting 7 9.3 jobs in some parts of Zimbabwe and abroad

6 There are no lecturers trained to use Tonga to teach different 5 6.7 courses

7 Tonga is only spoken in Matabeleland therefore people from other 8 10.7 areas in Zimbabwe do not understand it unless new colleges and universities are built in Tonga speaking areas for the Tonga people

8 The Shona and the Ndebele people would fight that suggestion and 10 13.3 since they are the majority, the battle is lost before it even begins

Table 44: Reasons against the Possibility of Using Tonga as LOLT at Tertiary Colleges and Universities (l) After you finish your high school, would you want to be taught using the Tonga language at college/university level? (Appendix i Question 18)

137

Although the majority of the teachers and the parents think that it is possible to use Tonga as the medium of instruction in tertiary colleges and universities, the majority of the learners indicated that they do not want to be taught using Tonga at that level. The table below shows the responses given by the learners.

Response N %

Yes 13 22

No 47 78

TOTAL 60 100

Table 45: Learners' Responses to whether they want to be taught using Tonga at College/University Level 78% of the learners who indicated that they do not want Tonga as the medium of instruction preferred English instead. They gave the following reasons to motivate their choice of preference:

 They do not want to stay in Binga for the rest of their life and a qualification obtained through the use of an international language is their only chance of getting out of the poverty-stricken Binga District  English has higher status than Tonga  They can use English anywhere in the world  Using English means that they will not be forced to learn Ndebele and Shona  Since English is a neutral language, it means the Tonga learners will be at the same level with both the Ndebele and the Shona learners  Tonga language does not have terms for some scientific concepts  There are no learning materials written in Tonga

(m) What do you think are the general benefits of developing the Tonga language? (Appendix iii, Question 37).

The Tonga people are convinced that developing their language has great benefits. A number of issues were raised which ranges from social, economic, educational to political as indicated below:

 Tonga language and culture are maintained  Marginalisation of both the Tonga language and people is reduced

138

 Enables Tonga people to be considered not as minority but part of Zimbabwean citizens  Promotes unity within the country as the Tonga people would feel that they have been accepted as an ethnic group in Zimbabwe  Promotes participation in national issues by the Tonga people  It helps increase diversity  Tonga will be realised as an existing language in the country like the so called major languages  If used in education, help learners grasp concepts, pass their examinations and develop their communities.  Brings positive attitude towards the language to the youth

5.3.1.1 Motivation for the revitalisation of Tonga: Analysis on findings

According to Fishman (1991), the success of any RLS effort is hinged on intergenerational transmission of the language in question. The findings presented above point to the fact that intergenerational transmission of Tonga within the Tonga community is safe. This is exemplified by the fact that the majority of Tonga learners use Tonga as mother tongue and home language (86.7% and 88.3% respectively) (see Table 5.8). This means Tonga is being used in the home-family-neighbourhood community domain, the language is therefore being passed on inter-generationally. UNESCO (2003) Factor 1 and 3, which also talk of intergenerational transmission and the proportion of speakers within the total reference population, would place Tonga under Grade Five with degree of endangerment being safe since the language is used by all ages, from children up. However, the hegemonic tendencies of English, Shona and Ndebele are possible sources of threat and hence the need to insist on intergenerational language transmission.

There is encouragement from the parents to use the language since 70% (Table 38) of the learners indicated that their parents prefer that they use Tonga in the home. At the same time, 75% of the learners also indicated that when they have children of their own one day, they would use Tonga in their homes. This is because they are proud of their language as indicated by 85.4% of the parents and 83.3% of the learners (Table 39). This could mean that using Tonga in this community is an issue of linguistic pride. In other words, what could be deduced from this is, among other things, is the idea

139 that the motivation for the development of Tonga is based on the premise of ethnic linguistic pride. This linguistic pride according to the interviews held is pride in who they are, it is an identity marker (Table 40 categories 3, 5, 6). To quote one informant, “being proud of speaking another language would be betraying my identity”. This identity is fostered from the family level. According to Fishman (2006: 102),

It is in the family that social support and transactions with the community have traditionally been initiated and nurtured. It is also in the family that social commitments have traditionally been nurtured. Above all, it is in the family that a peculiar bond with language and language activities is fostered, shared and fashioned into personal and social identity.

The Tonga people were therefore motivated to revitalise their language because they felt that without their language, they have no identity. At this stage, preservation and development of the language is inward-looking, to express the identity of the speakers of the language as members of the community, fostering family ties, maintaining social relationships, preserving historical links and giving people a sense of their pedigree (Crystal 2000). Language is therefore part of an individual’s distinct identity, encompassing not only communication, but also heritage, culture and experiences (Mumpande 2006, Craith 2007, Ndhlovu 2008).

Developing Tonga is therefore a way of preserving the Tonga culture, Tonga inherited knowledge and Tonga identity. Condoning the loss of linguistic diversity worldwide means, according to Mühlhäusler (2000), cutting off future generations from philosophies, insights and perspectives that have accumulated in the world’s less powerful languages. In Crystal’s (2000) words, everything forgets, but not a language. Preserving a language is therefore preserving knowledge, which in turn sustains one’s identity.

The issue of linguistic pride is also a result of the question of attitude. Huebner (1996) argues that members of a speech community share a set of attitudes and beliefs about their language, which make them do something about their language. Where a speech community believes that its language is important and can serve certain functions, they will do something to preserve and/or develop that language. However, there are also instances where a speech community looks at its language as inferior and backward. In such cases, the community would rather assimilate to a dominant

140 language. Ndlovu (2013) indicates that the Kalanga are not proud of their language and look at it as an inferior language. As a result, they do not want to be associated with it and most of them identify with Ndebele instead. With communities neglecting their languages, governments too lack the commitment to develop such languages. In concurring with the above, Beukes (2009) points out that negative attitudes regarding the functional uses of African languages has resulted in language matters taking a back seat in the South African government’s transformation agenda.

In the case of Tonga, findings point to the fact that the Tonga community has a positive attitude toward Tonga. It was also discovered that the majority of Tonga speakers would diverge towards their language when communicated to with non-Tonga speakers using another language. This would be despite the fact that the majority of them are multilinguals. Fostering language attitudes according to Crystal (2000) is accordingly one of the most important initiatives to be achieved in the task of language preservation. During the interviews, questions were asked in English mostly, because the researcher is not very competent in the language (so there was an interpreter), but the answers came in Tonga. This was in contrast to questionnaires that were all answered in English. Social conversations between the researcher and the people of the Tonga community were done in Shona, the language the researcher is comfortable using. This was a clear statement on their attitude towards any other language bearing in mind the fact that questionnaires were in English and answers were given in English.

The pride that the Tonga people have in their language makes them assertive in defending their territory. One researcher from the University of Zimbabwe’s African Languages Research Institute narrated the ordeal he and a colleague went through when they went to Binga for a meeting in connection with the development of a corpus for the Tonga language (Chabata 2013). The two researchers do not speak Tonga but the chiefs initially refused to communicate in English even though they are proficient in it. According to Sinansengwe (2014), a similar incident happened again in 2012, during the Zimbabwe national population census. The Tonga people refused to be counted by enumerators who were not Tonga. What the Tonga people are simply doing is making a statement that their language is equally good and important and that they would not trade it for anything. In fact, the reason for defending this territory is claiming linguistic citizenship as indicated in Table 40 category 7 and Table 43

141 category 1, 9 & 11. They want to create space for their language within the Zimbabwe linguistic ecology.

Claiming linguistic citizenship is also a way of fighting marginalisation. The Tonga people do not want their language to be labelled as minority since the term minority is derogatory in this case (Table 40 category 6, Table 43 category 11). The chairperson of the Tonga Language Committee wrote to the then Minister of Primary and Secondary Education in the mid-1980s (Mumpande 2006:14);

The issue of referring to Shona and Ndebele as main languages is like pointing a finger at oneself as being main, main to who? Every language is the main language to speakers of that language. To say one’s language is the main is tantamount to saying somebody’s child is tantamount to me.

The Tonga, therefore, do not regard their language as minority, but indigenous like Shona and Ndebele. Claiming indigeneity on the part of their language is a forceful way of articulating linguistic citizenship (Heugh 2004, Makoni et al. 2008) and at the same time claiming parity with dominant indigenous languages. The motivation for revitalisation was therefore aroused by the need to correct the imbalances that exist amongst the languages of Zimbabwe.

An equally important reason for the development of the Tonga language, which came from the research, is the acceptance and accommodation of the Tonga people as part of the Zimbabwean citizenry. Question (m) presented in Table 46 above asked about the general benefits of developing Tonga. Some of the responses given were that marginalisation not only of the Tonga language but also the Tonga people would be reduced, that the development would enable the Tonga people to be considered not as a minority, but as part of Zimbabwean citizens. This, the informants argued, would promote unity within the country as the Tonga people would feel that they have been accepted as an ethnic group in Zimbabwe. What can be deduced from these responses is the fact that the Tonga people feel that they have been excluded from the Zimbabwean nationhood. The relegation of their language was equated to the relegation of themselves as an ethnic group. Consequently, the elevation of their language would also mean the upliftment of the Tonga as a people and their acceptance as citizens. One school headmaster interviewed argued that the Tonga speaking people have been left out from participating in political, economic and

142 educational issues in their country because like their language, they have been looked down upon. When language is used to exclude others from participating, then it becomes apparent that a country’s policy is part of the apparatus used to block access to democracy (Magwa 2010: 24). Magwa further argues that participation in the political life of a state implies that citizens are:

 Involved in decision making  Consulted about issues that concern them  Kept informed by politicians  Able to communicate their views to political leaders

The language set-up in Zimbabwe however does not allow for active citizenship participation. This kind of participation has been a preserve for dominant language speakers because Zimbabwe has been seen as a Shona-Ndebele nation (Ndhlovu 2009), excluding minority languages from the domains of education, media, business and administration. This has led to the accumulation of power in the hands of the dominant language speakers, and in the process has created social injustices on the part of minority language speakers. This is despite the fact that citizenship in Zimbabwe is defined by the following categories in the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act of 1990, Chapter 4:01:

 Citizenship by birth  Citizenship by descent  Citizenship by registration

One of the reasons behind revitalising the Tonga language was therefore the realisation by the Tonga people that, contrary to the Citizenship Act, language was being used as an in-group marker. Therefore, for them to become full citizens of Zimbabwe, with full rights to participate in all issues pertaining to their country, there was a need to develop their language to the same level with Shona and Ndebele. Although on the surface the Tonga people seem to be dealing with a linguistic issue, the ripple effects touch on political issues as well.

The above reasons are not the only reasons why the Tonga people felt the need to defend their language from linguicide. The rationale for the preservation and development also lies in the currency that the Tonga people ascribe to their language. What stands out from responses to Questions (i) Table 44, and (j) Table 45 presented above is the value ascribed to the use of Tonga in the classroom. There is a consensus

143 amongst teachers on the importance of using Tonga as the language of teaching and learning. The teachers indicate that the use of the mother tongue as language of instruction helps in learners grasping concepts being taught, that they understand and follow instructions easily and that it helps them participate actively in class, reasons that are supported in literature (Ndhlovu 2008, Craith 2007, Webb & du Plessis (eds) 2006, Tollefson 1991, Moto 2009, Vygotsky 1998, Cummins 2000, Beukes 2009). The Tonga people want to develop their language so that it can be used effectively in the education sector for the benefit of both their children and the community at large. Mother tongue education helps learners pass and as a result develop their communities. Tollefson (1991) argues that language education inequalities impact on economic, political and social inequality. This means the opposite is true.

Question (k) was meant to solicit informants’ opinion on the use of Tonga as LOLT at post- secondary level. The majority of parents (93.3%) and teachers (70.6%) feel that it is possible to use Tonga as LOLT. Contrary to parents and teachers’ opinion, only 22% of the learners feel the same way. Although learners, teachers and parents value the importance of using Tonga as LOLT, there is however an acute difference in terms of the level at which the language can be used. The difference is as a result of the age variable. The majority of learners (78%) from Table 49 indicate that they do not want to use Tonga as LOLT at tertiary level, but English, which is an international language. They do not want to stay in Binga for the rest of their lives and a qualification obtained using an international language is their only chance of getting out of the poverty- stricken Binga District.

The same sentiments were also echoed by a former Masvingo State University1 (now Great Zimbabwe University) graduate, Jane Juru, who completed her Bachelor of Arts degree in 2005. The university used Shona as LOLT in modules like Phonology and Phonetics, Literature to name a few, and the examinations for these modules were also in Shona. Even on the academic transcript, these modules appear in Shona. This intake of students, according to Juru (2015,) had problems securing employment. Most employers particularly from the private sector were sceptical of academic transcripts

1 Masvingo State University started off as Masvingo Teachers’ College. In 1999 there was a move by the Zimbabwe government to upgrade teachers’ colleges to degree awarding universities and Masvingo Teachers’ College became Masvingo State University. Three years later, the name was changed to Great Zimbabwe University.

144 written in Shona, she argued. The learners’ reasons for the preferred choice thus show their extra-local orientation which according to Fought (2006) means that they are oriented towards contacts and future opportunities outside the community. In as much as learners are proud of their language, have a positive attitude towards their language and understand the role it plays in the education sector, they are also drawing clear lines of demarcation in terms of domain use. This variance in perception and domain use needs to be monitored by both parents and school agents to ensure that the use of Tonga in lower levels of education and in the home remains safe from English encroachment. In addition to that, there is a need on the part of the community and other stakeholders to market Tonga. Cooper (1989) as cited by Beukes (2009) maintains that marketing a language is about developing the right product backed by the right promotion and put in the right place at the right time. Education consumers (learners) would have to be assured that the product would significantly facilitate optimal cognitive development, good academic performance, good skills in additional languages such as English, upward mobility and material benefits.

In Section 5.3.1, I have presented findings pertaining to the first research question, which deals with the motivation for the revitalisation of Tonga. Through analysis of the data gathered, motivation for the development of Tonga spans across domains ranging from social, educational, economic to political. The Tonga people want to develop their language because they want to preserve their identity, culture and also to be part of the Zimbabwean citizenry. They want to be treated as peculiar, yet recognised and accepted as citizens of Zimbabwe, without any prejudice or marginalisation. They want to remain loyal to their language, be identified with it as exemplified by its home language and first language use. Through developing their language, the Tonga people also want to lift the status of their language from a minority to a national language so that it shares parity with the dominant indigenous languages of the country, Shona and Ndebele. Its development was meant to enable Tonga to be used in important domains like education and the media, thereby gaining currency.

5.3.2 What factors have contributed to this linguistic development? The second research question pertains to the factors that have led to the development of Tonga that is being witnessed today. In order to solicit information from the informants to answer the question above, the following sub-questions were asked:

145

 What has your community done to ensure that Tonga is kept alive?  Are there people or organisations from outside helping you keep Tonga alive? Who are they and what have they done?

Responses to these questions are presented below as findings. Information was gathered through questionnaires and interviews. Additional information was also sourced through literature.

5.3.2.1 What has your community done to ensure that Tonga is kept alive? (Appendix ii Question 19, iii question 17). Parents and teachers responded to the above question. The following activities were given and will be discussed in detail.

 Formation of the Tonga Language and Cultural Committee (TOLACO) and its activities below:

o Making sure that Tonga is included in the school curriculum o Community helping with the writing of Tonga literature o Community awareness and advocacy programmes o Cultural festivals o Formation of Basilwizi non-governmental organisation o Tonga-on-line

(a) The formation of the Tonga Language and Cultural Committee (TOLACO) and its activities

Before Zimbabwe got its independence in 1980, Tonga used to be taught in schools up to Standard Five in Binga and Hwange, with missionaries sourcing textbooks from Zambia (Nyika 2007, Mumpande 2006, Makoni et al. 2008). With the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) by Ian Smith in 1974, Ranger (1985) asserts that there were protests from Zambia and beyond which resulted in the imposition of economic sanctions. The economic sanctions included the banning of the exportation of learning materials from Zambia and with this, the colonial government stopped the teaching of Tonga in 1976 (Mumpande 2006:12) and replaced it with Ndebele. The Tonga people were not happy about this and they voiced their concern to the District Commissioner. The replacement of Tonga with Ndebele in the school system was a

146 direct imposition of the Ndebele language and culture on the Tonga people. In 1976, the Tonga people formed the Tonga Language and Cultural Committee (TOLACO) (Makoni et al. 2008, Nyika 2007). The main objective of the association was to correct the economic, political and linguistic marginalisation of the Tonga. Their focus was the education sector. In response to the pressure from TOLACO, the District Commissioner challenged them to produce their own literature and learning material. This, in itself was discrimination since the production of Shona, Ndebele and English literature and learning materials was the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. The Tonga people, however, rose to the occasion, with the community forming a group of writers, which published manuscripts for use in schools in 1978-9. This victory did not however last long because of the Zimbabwe liberation struggle.

Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain sparked a wave of protests from various corners. It did not only result in economic sanctions by Zambia, it also led to linguistic and political wars. According to Makoni (2008:6), it provoked an armed revolution led by the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (Zapu) comprised mainly of the Shona and Ndebele people respectively. Realising that the Tonga people were in conflict with the colonial government and the Ndebele people because of the imposition of Ndebele in schools, Zanu PF decided to take advantage of the situation. They promised the Tonga people (and other minority groups) that their languages would be reinstated in the school curriculum after independence if they helped them fight the Ian Smith government (Ranger 1985). After independence, TOLACO suspended its activities hoping that, ‘the new democratic government would be more responsive to the needs of former marginalised groups’ (Makoni et al. 2008:25). The dawn of independence did not, however, yield any changes for the Tonga people. They were disappointed with the government’s language policy in education, because the independent government simply continued with the colonial language policy.

Due to the disappointment from the independent government, TOLACO decided to revive its activities. It joined hands with language committees from Venda and Kalanga minority languages. These language groups realised that the main constraint they were facing in the education sector was the lack of learning and teaching materials. The publishing houses in Zimbabwe during that time were not eager to publish learning and teaching materials in minority languages citing lack of viability because of the

147 limited numbers in minority language speaker populations (Nyika 2007). This realisation led to the formation of the Venda, Tonga and Kalanga Publishing House known as VETOKA Publishing House in 1985. Its main mandate therefore was to ensure the publishing of learning and teaching materials in their respective languages. Despite this effort, VETOKA did not last. Mumpande (2006) states four factors that led to the failure of this publishing house. VETOKA failed to secure enough money to kick- start the project as well as to sustain the operation of the project. Mumpande (ibid) further argues that the people involved lacked advocacy and lobby skills to get people to write the books. During its early stages, the publishing house also suffered the loss of two of its leading members, Gwakuba Ndlovu who left for Swaziland in search of greener pastures and Malaba who passed away. So once again TOLACO failed to achieve its set goals.

Seven years into independence, the Zimbabwe government replaced the colonial language-in-education policy with the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987, part of which is outlined below (which was later amended in 2006).

THE ZIMBABWE EDUCATION ACT OF 1987 Section 62 of the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987. 5. Subject to this section, the three main languages of Zimbabwe namely Shona, Ndebele and English shall be taught in all primary schools from the first grade as follows:- c. Shona and English in all areas where the mother tongue of the majority of the residents is Shona, or d. Ndebele and English in all areas where the mother tongue of the majority of residents is Ndebele 6. Prior to fourth grade, either of the languages referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) may be used as the medium of instruction, depending upon which language is commonly spoken and better understood by the pupils. 7. From the fourth grade, English shall be the medium of instruction, provided that Shona and Ndebele shall be taught as subjects on equal time allocation basis as the English language. In all areas where minority languages exist, the Minister may authorise the teaching of such languages in primary schools in addition to those specified in subsection (1) (2) and (3). The Tonga people were not happy with the fact that their language, together with other minority languages, was not included in the first amended Education Act after independence. In fact, the Act did not only exclude minority languages, it went on to

148 impose Ndebele and Shona over these languages. The anger and disappointment resulted in the revival of TOLACO activities. To show their disappointment in the policy, the chairperson of TOLACO wrote the following to the then Minister of Primary and Secondary Education:

The issue of referring to Shona and Ndebele as main languages is like pointing a finger at oneself as being main, main to who? Every language is the main language to the speakers of that language. To say one’s language is the main is tantamount to saying somebody’s child is the main to me. (Mumpande 2006:14) The Act set the stage for the hegemonic tendencies of English, Ndebele and Shona over other languages and with the full support of the Education Act. They were given the power, the status and all the benefits that come along with power and status, such benefits like the government making sure that teachers are trained to teach Ndebele and Shona, literature was made available to schools in these two languages. According to Ndlovu (2013), the linguistic and cultural capital ascribed to Shona, Ndebele and English in the afore-cited policy documents inevitably gives the impression that they are of more value and use compared to minority languages. This was a perpetuation of pre-independent education policies, what was put in place after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence.

Another area of contention was the exclusion of minority languages from the education sector as both languages of instruction and taught subjects. This emanates from the status accorded to these languages. They are not part of the main languages of the country. The space that they occupy in the Act makes one wonder if their inclusion was not an afterthought. Ndlovu (2013) argues that this raises the issue of compulsory versus optional subjects. He further argues that English, Ndebele and Shona are core, mandatory or compulsory subjects that should be taught everywhere in the country and to the whole nation and they should be used to teach other subjects. The minority languages on the other hand are treated differently. Firstly, they are optional subjects. If something is optional, it means it is not important, its presence or absence thereof is not significant, it does not matter. Where they are to be taught, they are to be taught as additional languages since Ndebele and Shona are compulsory. The document is however silent on whether Ndebele and Shona are to be taught as first/home languages or additional languages to minority language speakers. However, information from interviews with teachers indicate that these languages were being

149 taught to minority language speakers as first/home language and that they use the same syllabus used anywhere else in Zimbabwe.

Secondly, minority languages can only be used as languages of instruction or taught subjects at the discretion of the minister as indicated in section 62 of the Zimbabwe Education Act. This placed minority languages at the mercy of ministers who, in most cases, are not concerned about minority languages. Thirdly, where they were to be taught, they were relegated to lower grades of primary school, that is, from Grade One to Four. In a nutshell, minority languages were looked down upon. This was the perception of the Zimbabwe government as it formulated this Act, a perception that was at variance with the perception of the indigenous speakers of these languages. This perception brings forth the ideological orientation of the government, which is clearly captured by Ruiz (1984). Languages in a multilingual ecology are not perceived in the same way, which leads to language stratification. While some languages are looked at as a resource, for example, English, Ndebele and Shona, some like minority languages are looked at as problems and problems should be eradicated (Ruiz 1984). However, the minority language speakers do not perceive their languages as problem languages. They see them as languages with educational, economic and political capital and their only way to move from the educational, economic and political bondage that they are experiencing.

TOLACO had thus identified the above as areas of contention. The aim of TOLACO at this point was to influence the government to amend its language policy in a way that promoted the recognition and development of what it called ‘minority’ languages (Makoni et.al 2008). TOLACO made a decision to include other minority groups in their lobbying of government and this led to the formation of the Zimbabwe Indigenous Languages Promotion Association (ZILPA) in 2001. ZILPA comprises six minority languages, namely Kalanga, Nambya, Shangani, Sotho, Tonga and Venda.

The ZILPA association was thus formed in reaction to the provisions of The Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987. The association was reacting to the implications of the designation of English, Ndebele and Shona as the main languages, the level at which minority languages were to be taught, and the fact that the teaching of these languages was left at the discretion of the Minister of Education. This is reflected in the framing of their objectives listed below, in which they inherited the objectives of

150

TOLACO, added some more issues and came up with the following according to the Minutes of ZILPA meeting, 7 April 2001:

Section 4: Objectives of ZILPA The objectives of the association are to operate on a non-profit basis and to: 4.1 Promote the teaching of TjiKalanga, ChiTonga, TshiVenda, ChiNambya, ChiChangana and SeSotho in schools, colleges and universities; 4.2 Lobby the government of Zimbabwe to recognise and permit the use of TjiKalanga, ChiTonga, TshiVenda, ChiNambya, ChiChangana and SeSotho as official languages; 4.3 Assist and encourage the writing and production of literature in TjiKalanga, ChiTonga, TshiVenda, ChiNambya, ChiChangana and SeSotho languages for use in schools, colleges and universities; 4.4 Promote the use of TjiKalanga, ChiTonga, TshiVenda, ChiNambya, ChiChangana and SeSotho languages on national radio and television; 4.5 Network with organisations with similar objectives in Africa and beyond; 4.6 Solicit for and receive donations; 4.7 Do all things necessary to further these objectives and for the general and cultural well- being of the association’s beneficiaries. The vision of ZILPA as outlined in the above objectives was basically to upgrade minority languages in two ways. The association wanted to expand the domains in which minority languages can be officially used and it also aimed at upgrading minority languages from minority to official language status. In order to achieve this, TOLACO and ZILPA came up with an alternative language-in-education policy, which is outlined below.

The TOLACO- ZILPA draft policy Interpretation of terms

In this section:

i) Indigenous language means the following languages: Kalanga, Ndebele, Shona, Tonga, Sotho, Venda, Shangani and Nambya. ii) Area(s) means district(s)

151

1. Subject to this section, the indigenous languages of Zimbabwe including Sign language and English shall be treated equally, taught and examined from the first grade to university provided that, in each area or part of the area, the dominant indigenous language and English shall be taught. 2. The medium of instruction in any area or part of the area shall depend upon which indigenous language is more commonly spoken and understood by the majority of the pupils and shall be used in addition to the English language. 3. All indigenous languages shall be taught as subjects on an equal time allocation basis as the English language. 4. Subsection 4 of Section 62 of the Education Act is to be deleted (Minutes of ZILPA meeting, 7 April 2001)

The objective of the above policy is two-fold. Firstly, Tonga with other minority groups hoped to claim legitimate linguistic citizenship. According to the Tonga, the term minority is not only demeaning, but also has connotations of exclusion from the nation state in terms of both economic development and exercising their linguistic rights fully since “their language was merely in the state and not language of the state, which is a denial of legitimate nationhood’ (Makoni et al. 2008). They therefore felt that for their language and ultimately themselves to be legitimately recognised, there was a need to move away from the term ‘minority’ to ‘indigenous’, so that they may be treated in the same way as Shona and Ndebele, economically, socially and linguistically. In other words, linguistic problems are not mere language issues but are interwoven with social, economic and political issues as well. Victory in linguistic wars is therefore assumed to have a positive effect on social, economic and political problems as well.

Secondly, one can identify an agenda to diversify the languages in terms of domain use, that is, function, which will enhance the status of the language. There is a drive to upgrade the use of Tonga and other minority languages from mere domestic function and use at elementary school level to the use of the language in teaching and learning from elementary to university level. Teaching minority languages up to university level has a positive impact not only on the status of the language, but on the language speakers as well. Learning the languages up to higher levels of education than primary school would put them at parity with other indigenous languages like Ndebele and Shona. This would raise minority languages from mere domestic and familial use to the higher levels of the education sector. What is most important is the

152 fact that the languages have to be examined. According to McGroarty et al. (1995:324):

For indigenous languages, often disparaged or at least neglected by the dominant society, tests can be powerful pieces of evidence that a hitherto ‘invisible’ language does indeed exist in terms that an educational bureaucracy can understand and, consequently, must acknowledge. Officially examining the language was thus a way of making the language ‘visible’. The visibility would not only enhance the status of the languages, but would also go a long way in framing these people’s identity and their attitude towards that identity both inward and outward looking.

With this alternative policy, ZILPA lobbied the government to effect changes to the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987 and also on the media policy of the country. This time, concerted effort from minority languages paid off. This lobbying resulted in positive response from government and the victory was three-fold. In 2001, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Authority introduced the idea of 75% local content on both radio and television and created time slots of about 15-20 minutes a day for 14 minority languages on National FM radio. Still, Shona and Ndebele not only monopolise Radio Zimbabwe, but also feature prominently on Power FM, Sport FM and National FM. Although minority languages are only confined to National FM radio, their introduction on air was an achievement. However, Ndhlovu (2008) is of the opinion that introducing National FM was a political strategy on the part of the ruling party, which was losing membership and popularity at the time. He argues that ZILPA should have taken the opportunity to either plead for more space, or advocate for autonomous radio stations.

The second victory was scored on the status of the six minority languages. They were elevated to indigenous language status, although they did not gain the same prestige as Shona and Ndebele. Lastly, the Ministry of Education revised its policy regarding the teaching and learning of minority languages. The Secretary’s Circular 1 of 2002, states that from January 2002, the said languages would be assisted to advance to a grade per year (starting from Grade Four since provision for Grade One to Three was already constituted in the 1987 Act. It should, however be noted that not all schools in the various minority speaking areas were implementing this policy) until they can be taught up to Grade Seven. Although the policy was put on paper, there were no

153 strategies for implementation given. ZILPA members then took it upon themselves to make sure the policy was implemented. One way of doing it was by planning awareness workshops with chiefs and the community at large, where emphasis was on the importance of linguistic rights. Both ZILPA and TOLACO also made use of existing traditional structures, led by chiefs. The main strategy was to use the influence that chiefs wielded in their respective areas for they are the custodians of culture (which is partly expressed through language) and they are also politically powerful as constituted in the New Traditional Leaders Act of 1999, Chapter 29:17. Mumpande (2006) actually alludes to the fact that chiefs were indispensable in as far as engaging with government was concerned. Locally they also stamped their authority and made sure that schools within their areas of influence implemented the 2002 policy on language learning and teaching.

Chiefs could not effectively work alone on this daunting task so they incorporated school development committees (SDC), which comprised of parents, the school head and a few teachers. The SDC’s main responsibility is to ensure the smooth running of the school and that the school implements the education policy effectively. Their main mission therefore is to ensure the teaching of minority languages in schools. The SDCs in the Binga District were vigilant in their monitoring of the implementation of the policy to such an extent that school heads, which were seen to be obstructing the implementation, were removed from schools (Nyika 2007). This strategy was to be implemented in all districts where minority languages are spoken. As mentioned earlier, Circular 1 of 2002 indicated that from January 2002, minority languages would be assisted to advance to a grade per year and this is how this was supposed to happen:

GRADE YEAR

3 Already in place

4 January 2002

5 January 2003

6 January 2004

7 January 2005

154

Table 46: Secretary's Circular 1 of 2002 - Proposed Progression of minority language teaching per grade per year As indicated in the above table, all minority languages constituted in ZILPA were supposed to be examined at Grade Seven in 2005. However, 2005 came and went and there was no Grade Seven examination in any minority language. Out of the six minority languages, which form ZILPA, Tonga was the first one to successfully implement this strategy after a long struggle. In October 2011, six years after the date set in Circular 1 of 2002, Tonga was examined at Grade Seven. The following year, it was introduced at secondary school level and it was examined at Ordinary Level by the Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council (ZIMSEC) in November 2015. According to Mr Fredrick Mwale who is a subject specialist at ZIMSEC, item writing for Tonga Ordinary Level examination was done in April 2014 and a specimen paper for the examination was sent to Binga in the same year to prepare students for the 2015 October examination. Mr Mwale further indicated that the community was involved in coming up with comprehension passages for the Tonga Paper 1 examination because the examination board wanted to test students on issues that they are exposed to. Such a success story however can only be told of Tonga at the moment. The other five minority language groups are still struggling to have their languages examined at Grade Seven.

The SDCs also realised that for the 2002 policy to be successful, the right human resources were required. To begin with, when the Ministry of Education deploys teachers after they graduate from teachers’ colleges, they randomly deploy them without taking into consideration the teachers linguistic competence in the language of the locality in which they will be teaching. This means that teachers who are not competent in using Tonga end up being deployed in Tonga speaking areas. This has challenges for teaching and learning. Faced by such challenges, the SDCs then lobbied for the recruitment of qualified local personnel for temporary teaching posts. During an interview with Binga District Education personnel, it was indicated that all temporary teaching posts in the Tonga speaking district are occupied by Tonga speaking people. This makes it possible for the use of Tonga as medium of instruction in the classroom. This is an advantage to the learners since the role played by the learner’s culture and mother tongue in education should not be underplayed (Peresuh & Masuku 2002, Vygotsky 1998, Ndlovu 2013). School heads who were interviewed

155 were quick to say that the collaboration between SDCs and the District Education Officers has successfully made available the human resource component which will go a long way in solving the problems children were encountering because they were being taught in a language that was not their own. Ndlovu (2013) argues that the availability of Tonga speaking teachers made it easy for these teachers to improvise teaching materials before the publication of a full series of Tonga primary school textbooks. According to the school headmasters interviewed, the community was in total support of the deployment of Tonga speaking teachers to such an extent that parents at one point withdrew their children from school because non-Tonga speakers were deployed to schools.

After making available the human resource element in the form of teachers and making sure that minority languages were taught in primary schools, ZILPA turned to the issue of extending the teaching of minority languages in teachers colleges and universities. They approached teachers’ colleges and universities lobbying for the inclusion of minority languages in their curricula. The Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo Teachers’ College in Matabeleland took up the training of teachers in Venda, Sotho and Kalanga. This means teachers are being trained to teach these three languages. The then Masvingo State University, now known as Great Zimbabwe University, took on board Shangani and Venda in 2007. There remain two languages that were not taught at tertiary and university level, Tonga and Nambya. It is noteworthy that the Great Zimbabwe University approached the Tonga people first with the proposal of incorporating Tonga as a subject into their curricular, but the moment the University of Zimbabwe2 approached them, they quickly turned down Great Zimbabwe University and decided to work with the University of Zimbabwe. During the interviews done with the Tonga chiefs, the major reason cited for the decline is the status associated with the University of Zimbabwe as opposed to the recently established Great Zimbabwe University. The Tonga people are a proud people who know what they want, and would grab a good opportunity if it comes their way. What the University of Zimbabwe has done for the development of the Tonga language will be discussed under Section (b) below, which looks at contributions from outside the Tonga community.

2 The University of Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe’s oldest university established in 1952, formerly known as the University of Rhodesia. It is more prestigious than post independent Zimbabwe universities.

156

Minority language groups under ZILPA also hold cultural festivals as a strategy for language and cultural affirmation, as well as an avenue for grassroots mobilisation (Nyika 2008:12). These festivals continue to be held annually and they have contributed immensely to the (re)construction of ethnic and linguistic identity. They are also important in fostering good relationships with their counterparts across borders since they often invite them. During the 2004 Tonga cultural festival, Chief Mwemba from Zambia was invited and he came with a delegation of 200 Tonga speaking people (Minutes of the ZIPLA meeting held on 11 Dec 2004 at Basilwizi centre.)

The formation of a local non-governmental organisation, Basilwizi Trust, in 2002 by the Tonga people in solidarity with the Kore-kore people also contributed significantly towards the revitalisation of Tonga. Both the Tonga and the Kore-kore minority groups had lived in the Zambezi valley for centuries before they were forcefully displaced to pave the way for the building of the Kariba Dam between 1957-8. When they were displaced by the then colonial government, no proper resettlement procedures were followed, resulting in these two minority groups receiving no compensation in either cash or kind. Basilwizi Trust work under the premise that the appalling socio-economic status of Tonga and Kore-kore people is as a result of poverty, which came through displacement, and their emphasis is therefore poverty eradication (Munyaradzi 2004). According to Basilwizi Strategic Document (2010-2015), approximately 90% of the population of the Zambezi valley, which is largely inhabited by the Tonga, is poor. The strategic document further indicates that Binga District is the third lowest district on the Human Development Index (HDI) in Zimbabwe.

Given the above background, Basilwizi Trust is a needs-driven organisation geared towards economic reconstruction under the following four variables:

 Advocacy  Education and culture  Health, HIV and AIDS  Sustainable livelihoods

Basilwizi Trust pushed forward projects based on the above four variables within the context of rights-based approach. The variable that is directly linked to linguistic revitalisation is education and culture. The trust advocated for an awareness of the

157 importance of one’s language and culture as a basic human right, which should be exercised by everybody. Under this premise, the Tonga people had the right to use their language in the education sector. The Trust therefore introduced projects that would ensure that Tonga children go to school and that education was accessed in a language that they understand. Education opportunities were and are still provided for orphans and vulnerable children through paying of school fees. Basilwizi Trust was also instrumental in the advocacy for written material in Tonga to ease the use of the language of teaching and learning. The motivation for their involvement in the education sector was two pronged; to develop and create visibility for their language, and secondly to empower the Tonga people for the formal job market so that they can improve their communities. On the culture part, Basilwizi Trust introduced cultural exchanges between the Zimbabwean and Zambian Tonga communities in a bid to keep Tonga alive. Under the Education and Culture project, an online project, Tonga Online was established after a merger between Basilwizi and the Tonga Online project (www.basilwizi.org/basilwizi/projects/tonga-online-project). The aim of this project is to create space and voice for the Tonga language and culture. In September 2010, Tonga Online Project established a new Public Access Point (PAP) at Binga Rural District Library (Ibid). This is benefitting Binga schools and the community at large. The project goes a long way in overcoming the issues of marginalisation. Collaborations between Binga and Zambia are also made easier because of the access to advanced communication tools.

Apart from the above, Basilwizi Trust is also involved in other activities that have lifted Tonga. The Trust has managed to establish a newsletter, written in English and Tonga, which is posted on the trust website on a quarterly basis.

The other variables indirectly contributed to the revitalisation of Tonga. Under sustainable livelihoods, projects such as the Campfire projections were established. The idea was to improve people’s lives through income generated. The Basilwizi Strategic Document (2010-2015) indicates that through the livelihood projects, Binga district had seen an increase in the number of children staying in school because a part of the proceeds from the projects is used to pay school fees. Use of Tonga in domains like education is only successful if there are children in schools who would make use of the language and in the process weaken the dominance of Shona and Ndebele in Tonga communities.

158

5.3.2.2 Are there people or organisations from outside helping you keep Tonga alive? Who are they and what have they done? From the questionnaires and interviews done, there was a general consensus that there are individuals and organisations who have been involved in keeping Tonga alive as well as in developing it. However, most people could not provide full information on these individuals and organisations. The researcher therefore had to augment the respondents’ information with what is found in the literature. The researcher also interviewed some people from these organisations. The following names came from the responses:

 Silveira House  University of Zimbabwe: African Languages Research Institute (ALRI) : Department of African languages  Save the Children Fund – UK  Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP) Binga  Zimbabwe Publishing House (ZPH)

(a) University of Zimbabwe: African Languages Research Institute

The African Languages Research Institute’s (ALRI) mission statement is to research, document and develop Zimbabwe’s indigenous languages in order to promote and expand their use in all spheres of life. It focuses mainly on corpus development and maintenance, computational lexicography and language technology applications. According to Dr Emmanuel Chabata (2013), the Acting Director of ALRI, to date ALRI has developed a significant amount of corpora in Tonga, apart from Ndebele and Shona. Apart from developing corpora for Zimbabwe’s indigenous languages, ALRI has gone further to harness the advantages offered by Information Communication Technologies (ITCs) in promoting and preserving indigenous languages through digitalisation. Murungudzi et al, (2014) argues that digitalisation becomes handy in providing a necessary means and platform to promote the accessibility and preservation of local languages. Through digitalisation, content in indigenous languages is made available on the internet and people can access the content from any part of the world for various purposes. An example of digitalisation being harnessed in the documentation of marginalised languages was the preparation of the Tonga Grade Seven textbook for learners, which was published in 2011. ALRI has

159 thus contributed a lot towards the development of Tonga, not only in terms of corpora development, but also in terms of creating a digital space for the language. A digital space that ensures the preservation of the language for generations to come, a digital space that opens avenues for further research and development of literature in the Tonga languages.

Apart from developing the Tonga corpus, ALRI has also trained tutors, who are minority language mother tongue speakers for the Tonga programme that was introduced by the African Languages Department of the University of Zimbabwe in August 2016 and short courses on minority languages. The responsibility to provide candidates lay with the communities themselves. Once again, the Tonga people have already made available their candidate. It is hoped, according to the ALRI Director, that the availability of such tutors will go a long way in helping ensure that university students get the help they need in studying these minority languages.

(b) University of Zimbabwe: African Languages Department

The University of Zimbabwe’s African Languages Department has incorporated Tonga into their curricular as a subject and the first intake was introduced in August 2016. Asked why the department chose Tonga out of 14 minority languages in the country, members of the department gave the following reasons:

 Tonga was being supported by a number of civic organisations like Silveira House, BJPP and others and therefore stood a better chance of getting funds for its development.  Tonga already has an orthography and a substantive amount of literature.  It is a cross-border language, spoken on both sides of the river Zambezi, that is, in both Zimbabwe and Zambia. Fortunately, in Zambia, Tonga has been accorded national language status and thus enjoys some degree of linguistic prestige. It is also important to note that even though the Zambezi River divides the Tongas, they enjoy close relationships with one another, they still consider themselves as one family and there is constant movement across the border.  Due to these frequent movements, the Tonga managed to maintain their language and relationship to such an extent that they are always helping

160

each other. Since Tonga in Zambia is enjoying a great degree of linguistic prestige, it is being used in a number of domains and is being taught up to university level. However, in Zimbabwe, Tonga was first examined at Grade Seven level in 2011 and at Ordinary Level in November 2015.

The University of Zimbabwe has taken advantage of the good relationship that exists between the Zimbabwean and Zambian Tonga speakers and drawn a memorandum of agreement with the University Of Zambia (UNZA) so that they can get both lecturers and teaching materials from Zambia for their programme on Tonga. The rationale behind this, according to the Head of African Languages, Professor Muwati (2015), is the fact that a good number of Tonga speaking students are enrolling at the University of Zimbabwe, but are studying Ndebele because of its hegemony in the geographical region of Matabeleland, where the majority of the Tonga people are located. According to Muwati (2015), the process of integrating Tonga into the African Languages Department was a done deal. The three-year academic programme entitled BA in Tonga Language and Cultural Studies was approved by both Senate and the Regulations Committee of the University of Zimbabwe in 2013. Two lecturers from UNZA were appointed and the programme started in August 2016. Ten students have registered for the programme (see programmes offered by the Faculty of Arts, University of Zimbabwe 2016, Appendix ix).

This commission is the brainchild of the Roman Catholic Church. It was formed in 1972 to fight injustices perpetuated by the colonial government in the then Rhodesia. The injustices that the commission fought against ranged from economic, political, social to cultural. After independence, the organisation continued its fight against injustices, now by a black government against its own people. In December 1999, CCJP established a Civic Education and Advocacy Department under the Binga Justice and Peace Project (BJPP) (Nyika 2008:171). The BJPP’s focus was on education. Their first mandate was to assess the availability of learning and teaching resources as well as the general conditions of learning. According to section 62 of the 1987 Education Amendment Act, minority languages could be taught up to Grade 3. However, findings from research undertaken by BJPP in 2002 revealed that only a few schools were teaching Tonga as a subject as indicated in the table below.

161

Level to which Tonga is Number of schools % taught

Not taught at all 41 73

Grade 1-2 5 9

Grade 1-3 10 18

Table 47: Teaching of Tonga in Binga District Source: Report on the 29-30 July 2002 TOLACO Workshop.

So, out of 56 primary schools in Binga District, only 15 were teaching Tonga by the end of July 2002. This, according to constitutional lawyer, Dr Lovemore Madhuku (n.d), was a violation of human rights. The Tonga people had the right to have their language taught in schools, to have their language at parity with other languages like Ndebele and Shona. On the issue of textbooks, there were only a few textbooks in the whole district, which, according to Nyika (2008), could be translated to the ratio of one textbook to twenty learners. This means that there was a possibility that in a single school term a learner may not get hold of the Tonga textbook because there were too few textbooks. This lack of adequate textbooks made it difficult for most schools to teach Tonga as a subject. BJPP also assessed the availability of Tonga speaking teachers and found that 312 out of 734 teachers in the district were Tonga speakers. This constituted 42.5% of the teacher population. Code switching between the language of instruction and the learner’s home language has been found to play a pivotal role in developing and understanding concepts in learners (Ndlovu 2012). However, with more than 50% of the teacher population being incompetent in using the Tonga language, this means in many subjects children are only taught using English. This therefore results in a disadvantage for the learner. Peresuh & Masuku (2002) argue that deployment should take cognisance of the linguistic abilities of the teacher vis-à-vis the school he/she has to work in. They further assert that the child’s self-esteem, communicative factors and other issues are essential and can be greatly facilitated by a teacher who is conversant with and sympathetic to the language and culture of the child.

Equipped with the above information, BJPP embarked on a number of turn-around strategies. Their focus was on raising awareness of the above education related problems in the Tonga speaking areas to the Tonga people. BJPP through its

162 advocacy officers therefore embarked on village awareness raising workshops. Starting their campaign from the grassroots was a way of lobbying for support from the end user. There was need for the Tonga communities to understand the negative effects of leaving out Tonga from the education sector. Once the community understood the importance of their language in the education sector, they will be more than willing to support the turn-around strategies. The success of the village awareness workshops is seen in the effective lobbying by the community for the teaching of Tonga in their communities and also the lobbying of the District Education Department for the deployment of Tonga speaking temporary teachers for any vacant teaching post. However, BJJP could not do it alone. Village awareness campaigns needed money. It therefore worked in partnership with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Silveira House, a non-governmental organisation. USAID provided financial assistance for the running of the advocacy programme.

Apart from the education related problems discussed above, BJPP realised that the root cause of these problems was the legal provisions of section 62 of the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987, as discussed on pages 157-159. In general, Madhuku (n.d.:1) picked the issues of human rights violations, inhuman treatment and discrimination of minority language groups as discussed below.

Section 62 of the Education Act (Chapter 25: 04) provides for the teaching of only three main languages in Zimbabwe’s primary schools. According to the section, Shona must be taught in ‘all areas where the mother tongue of the majority of the residents is Shona’ while the same must happen to Ndebele where the mother tongue of the majority of the residents is Ndebele. This means that the minority languages cannot be taught in areas where they are the predominant languages. It is submitted that Section 62 of the Education Act infringes Section 23 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which outlaws discrimination on a number of grounds including tribe, place of origin, and so on. The relevant part of Section 23 reads: “…No law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effort and no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or public authority.”

It further provides that “… a law shall be regarded as making a provision that is discriminatory and a person shall be regarded as having been treated in a discriminatory manner if, as a result of that law or treatment, persons of a particular description by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed are prejudiced…”

163

There is little doubt that the choice of one language in preference to another is discrimination based on either tribe or place of origin. No one language is inherently superior to others and the fact that Shona and Ndebele are spoken by a larger number of people than the other languages is irrelevant. It is also important to observe that Section 23 does not accept any derogation therefrom on such grounds as “reasonable justification”. This means that once discrimination on the prohibited grounds is shown, the purported law is null and void. This should be the position regarding Section 62 of the Education Act. Section 62 also contravenes Section 62 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Section 15(1) provides that: “No person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or other such punishments.”

It is submitted that forcing a person whose mother tongue is a given indigenous language to learn some other indigenous language in circumstances contemplated by Section 62 amounts to, “inhuman or degrading treatment”. Although Zimbabwe does not have a very clear equality clause in its constitution, Section 62 of the Education Act arguably contravenes Section 18(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which entitles everyone to “the protection of law”. This provision implies equality of treatment and Section 62 falls foul of it. After the legal analysis of the Education Act as shown above, Madhuku (n.d.:3) suggested the way forward as indicated below: There are two main courses of action to follow. The first is to convince the government and /or Parliament of the unconstitutionality of Section 62 and ask for its repeal. This is a matter of political pressure and if it succeeds, it is less costly and convenient.

The second is to take the matter to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe under Section 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and seek an order declaring Section 62 of the Education Act unconstitutional. In the long run, it is important to review the constitution and ensure that it has adequate protection of minority language speakers. The South African Constitution is a good example. For example, Section 6 of [the] South African Constitution makes almost all languages spoken in South Africa to be “official languages”3. Furthermore, Section 30 of the South Africa Constitution provides:

3 According to Beukes (2009), about 25-30 languages are used in SA on a daily basis but the Constitution enshrines official status to 11 of the main languages spoken in SA.

164

“Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights”. In Uganda, Section 37 of the Constitution of Uganda provides that every person has a right as applicable to belong to, enjoy, practice, profess, maintain and promote any culture, institution, language, tradition, creed or religion in community with others.

When BJPP received the recommendations from Madhuku, they decided according to Nyika (2008) that the more desirable route was to engage government on the issue through ZILPA, rather than adopt a confrontational approach through the process of litigation. Once again, the Tonga community saw the need for strength through numbers.

(d) Silveira House

Silveira House is a leadership and training institute founded in 1964 by the Society for Jesus. Among other things, Silveira House focuses on human rights abuses perpetuated by leadership, in particular, political leadership. Its involvement in the development of Tonga language was aroused at the launch in 1994 of a book by Father Michael Tremmel entitled “The people of the great river.” Father Tremmel traces the history of the Tonga from pre-colonial period to how they were displaced from the banks of the Zambezi River to give way to the building of the Kariba dam. He bemoans in his book the way the Tonga were isolated, marginalised and forgotten by both the colonial and post-colonial governments and that due to these challenges, both the Tonga culture and language were facing natural death. Sibanda (2013) asserts that Tremmel therefore compiled an account of the lives of the Tonga people as a way of preserving their culture. According to Tremmel (1994:10), the message of their story may empower the Tonga to raise a much louder, clearer and more unified voice. It is this message that touched Sister Janice MacLaughlin of Silveira House and compelled her to do something for the Tonga people. Mumpande (2006) contends that the launch of this book sowed the seeds for Silveira House’s advocacy project. It collaborated with CCJP in Binga in advocating for the promotion of Tonga and later on extended its mandate to supporting national awareness raising workshops in

165 partnership with ZILPA after its formation in 2001. Silveira House achievements are linked to ZILPA’s achievements.

(e) Save the Children Fund-UK

This is a United Kingdom based non-governmental organisation whose main objective is to help vulnerable children. In Zimbabwe, Save the Children Fund – UK (SCF-UK) has worked towards the development of marginalised languages by focusing on children. In the process of language death, it is mostly the childbearing age group, which cease to pass on the language through intergenerational transmission to younger generations. When this happens, the youth develop a negative attitude towards their own language and would rather assimilate to and be identified with dominant languages.

Ndlovu (2013:443) in his research on the Kalanga and Venda minority groups argues that the negative attitudes of the learners towards Kalanga and Venda in most cases match those of their parents and reflect the groups’ low ethnolinguistic vitality and awareness. On the other hand, UNESCO (2003) contends that other speakers of endangered languages attempt to directly counter these threats to their language, and commit themselves to language stabilization and revitalization activities. These communities may establish environments such as day care centres, schools, or at least classes in which their languages are exclusively spoken (Ibid). It is this UNESCO dimension that SCF-UK chose to develop. It initiated education programmes aimed at developing the Tonga language through educating Tonga speaking children. The organisation therefore funded training of writers and publication of teaching and learning materials. Since the development of Tonga was to be achieved through its inclusion in the education sector, SCF-UK supports Tonga speaking school going age children in difficult circumstances by assisting in paying school fees and providing textbooks, stationery and school furniture for them. Using Tonga both at home and at school is a way of keeping Tonga visible and sustaining it through generations.

5.3.2.3 Factors that have led to the development of Tonga: Analysis of findings Research question 2 is pre-occupied with activities of the social actors involved in the development of Tonga language. As discussed above, these social actors came from within and outside of the Tonga community. From the data gathered, an integrated approach was used in the revitalisation of Tonga, which includes among others,

166

Fishman’s (1991) RLS theory, UNESCO’s (2003) Nine Factors and Milligan’s (2007) Systems Model of Language Planning.

The ultimate aim of revitalising activities engaged in by the social actors involved in Tonga was increasing the actual population of Tonga speakers as a vitality factor. This was because the hegemonic tendencies of Shona and Ndebele were beginning to take over even the home domain, thus negatively affecting the number of Tonga users. According to Milligan (2007), the state of language, planning is discussed by calculating the actual population of Xish users, in this case, Tonga users. The actual population of language users is influenced by four variables, which are; birth rate, acquisition of Xish, Xish abandonment as well as death rate. The first two lead to the increase of the actual population of users while the last two leads to the loss of Xish users. Acquisition or abandonment of Xish revolves around what Milligan (2007) calls the perceived attractiveness of Xish. Revitalising activities were therefore aimed at increasing the population of Tonga speakers, both in the home domain and domains outside the home.

While Milligan (2007) points to the ultimate goal of language planning activities, that is, actual population of users, Fishman (1991) gives a detailed discussion of the various activities that are corrective or solution based. I find it expedient that I reiterate, at this juncture, Fishman’s (1991) principle notions for the success of grass root initiatives.

(a) RLS-effort must initially be primarily based on the self-reliance of pro- RLSers and on the community of Xish users and advocates whom pro- RLSers seek to mobilise and to activate (b) RLSers and the Xish communities must be self-reliant in terms of, among other things, time, finance and dedication. This is important in that most governments look at multilingualism as a problem and therefore lack the political will to develop minority languages, which they look at as problem languages (c) Xish community dedication is also crucial particularly in stages 8 to 4 since the success of these stages require effort and will from the Xish communities themselves

167

(d) Attention should be directed to crucial issues or ‘first things first’ – this is significant because RLS, like all minority based efforts is more likely to be characterised by a serious shortage of resources

(e) When all is said and done, any and all seriously intended RLS effort must still stand the acid test of fostering demonstrable transmissibility across the intergenerational link.

From Fishman’s (1991) micro level language planning point of view, one can deduce the idea that efforts at revitalising Tonga prior to the community’s collaborations with other social actors did not harvest much because they did not take into consideration the above principle notions. The period between the formation of TOLACO in 1976, and the coming in of the first non-governmental organisation (Binga Justice for Peace Project) in 1999 was a period of great turbulence for the few Tonga people who were fighting for the development of the language. Long as the period was (23 years); it did not achieve anything significant.

Principle notions (a) and (b) above, lacked in the process of revitalisation prior to 1999. The Tonga community was not self- reliant in a number of ways. The community members who were actively involved in the quest for revitalisation lacked lobbying skills, they did not have experience in language planning and language development and their financial muscle was very weak. These deficiencies led to the failure of their attempts at revitalisation. Venda, Tonga and Kalanga (VETOKA) collaboration failed because of that. In terms of numbers, yes, they were many but unfortunately, they were likeminded people who lacked the same skills and resources. The Tonga should however be applauded for their commitment and dedication to the development of their language. At some point, other community groups gave up the Tonga people did not.

Principle notion (c) gives emphasis to community effort. It should be noted that in the early stages, the fight for the development of Tonga was a concern of a few chiefs and a few individuals. Mumpande (2006) alludes to the fact that some chiefs even claimed to belong to non-Tonga ethnic groups, while some community members were happy to be identified with dominant languages. This means the process of revitalisation did not enjoy enough community support. With such divisions within the community itself, it was difficult to move forward. It is also assumed that the government took advantage of the divisions and was therefore not sympathetic to the plight of those who were

168 pushing forward the revitalisation agenda. The divisions also had implications on principle notion (e), intergenerational language transmission.

Principle notion (d) is crucial in the sequencing of activities for revitalisation. In as much as language development advocates may have a number of activities that need to be done, it is crucial that these activities be given the right priority. The activities of TOLACO prior to 1999 were geared towards the education and media domains. The problem with this was that the language committee was trying to take Tonga to domains outside the home without taking the community with it. There was no grass root support for the language. The intention was good but it was not the most crucial activity to be done in this instance.

The coming in of non-governmental organisations and other interested stakeholders marks a turning point in the revitalisation of Tonga. These social actors brought to the table the various skills and resources that the Tonga and other minority languages lacked and earnest work on Tonga revitalisation began.

5.3.2.3.1 Prioritising RLS activities: Gaining Xish users in the family- neighbourhood domain 23 years after the formation of TOLACO, BJPP, a non-governmental organisation under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church, came to the rescue of TOLACO and other minority languages now under ZILPA. Since proper sequencing of effort is crucial for the success of any RLS effort, this presupposes an objective and careful examination of the language situation to determine what needs to be done, and what needs to be done first. Following Fishman’s (1991) theory, BJPP decided to start off by making the Tonga community aware of what was at stake. BJPP thus placed Tonga in the first phase of GIDS (Stages 8-5, particularly Stage 6 and 5) which Fishman (1991) calls the ideological consensus.

The ideological consensus stage was crucial for a number of reasons. Lobbying the community was a way of ensuring support from the community of end users since people may not be expected to rally behind what they do not know. For two decades, TOLACO had failed to make inroads because it lacked community support. The Tonga community as a whole could not rally behind TOLACO because they did not see the benefits of Tonga revitalisation, particularly the young generation. This is where Milligan (2007) comes in; acquisition of a language is dependent on its perceived

169 attractiveness. This further implies that the use of a language in whatever domain depends on its currency. The population of language speakers and the degree of intergenerational transmissions is thus determined by the language’s currency.

Taking the above implications into consideration, the RLS advocates firstly had to work on bringing awareness on the “attractiveness’’ of Tonga because some of the Tonga people had lost faith in their language in favour of the dominant languages. Change of attitude towards the language was crucial; there was therefore need for decolonisation of the mind since issues of attitudes are issues of the mind. The following issues were therefore raised by different social actors in building up the currency of Tonga:

 Distinctiveness- According to Chief Sinansengwe (2014), chiefs who advocated for the development of Tonga argued that people could only be identified by their language and culture. Adopting other languages weakens their cultures and creates identity crisis  Human rights perspective- Basilwizi Trust advocated for the awareness of the importance of the use of one’s language as a basic human right, people are entitled to use their language. This was premised against the backdrop of the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987/1996 whose provisions did not carter for the use of minority languages  Educational benefits- the Binga Education Project assessed the disadvantages of leaving Tonga out of the education sector

It was therefore crucial that the Tonga people rally behind the revitalisation of their language because it is a part of who they are, what makes them distinct from other Zimbabwean ethnic groups, it is their basic human right, it has implications in the education of their children and ultimately in poverty eradication. The onus was therefore upon the Tonga community to empower themselves through language.

Armed with the perceived currency of Tonga, the advocates began working on the weak phase of GIDS and its success heavily depended on community members themselves. From 1999, lobbying was therefore done through village awareness campaigns and every section of the community was involved, from chiefs to village heads, to the family level. Schools within the communities were also involved through school headmasters, teachers and school development committees. The word that was preached according to Sinansengwe (2014) was the importance of reviving the 170

Tonga language as discussed above. The key concept in this phase is centred around Stage 6 on the GIDS, which is mainly focused on intergenerational language transmission. Through awareness programmes, the community was persuaded at every level to support the use and revival of Tonga. The ultimate goal of intergenerational transmission was to boost the actual population of Xish users across all ages.

5.3.2.3.2 RLS requires institutional reinforcement: Gaining Xish visibility outside the family-neighbourhood domain After the foundations of RLS were firmly laid through awareness campaigns between 1999 and 2001, BJPP moved on to the next phase of GIDS. Fishman (1991) calls this phase the strong end of RLS efforts. In this phase, the aim is to extend the use of the language beyond the community to new domains. The perceived attractiveness of Tonga that was preached in community awareness campaigns had to find their manifestation in domains outside the home. Using the UNESCO Nine Factors, I would place RLS efforts within Factors 4, 5 and 6, which are pre-occupied with the language’s response to existing and new domains. Since there is a disparity amongst languages in the Zimbabwe linguistic ecology in terms of domain use, any activity aimed at increasing a language’s domain influence results in positive language planning (Milligan 2007). This means that there is intentional manipulation of activities that influence the acquisition of the minority language and abandonment of the dominant language in some domains.

The basis for the use of any language in formal domains outside the home is corpus planning. There is a need for orthography as the foundation for the writing system of any language. Ricento (2006) contends that resources (language) need to be captured and refined before they are ready for the market. Milligan (2007) concurring with Ricento (2006) argues that changes in corpus (of the minority language) must have an impact upon the way in which the language is used before influencing the perceived attractiveness of Xish. The foundation therefore, is corpus planning, an activity that was done on the Tonga language by the African Languages Research Institute (ALRI) of the University of Zimbabwe. Between 2002 and 2006, ALRI worked on the corpora for Tonga as well as its standardisation. The process of standardisation was advanced by revising and refining existing orthography (Chabata 2007). With the availability of Tonga corpus, making available learning resources in Tonga for teachers and learners

171 was made easy (Chabata 2008). This made possible the infiltration of Tonga and its response to existing and new domains, particularly in the education sector. The process of schooling is a form of social and cultural reproduction that is linked openly to other structures in society, especially economic structures that reproduce social relations (Carson 1993:5). The availability of learning resources therefore resulted in positive effects on a number of variables discussed below.

To begin with, the availability of learning resources made possible the study of Tonga as a subject currently from Grade 1 to university level. Now that Tonga is studied as a subject in schools in the Tonga speaking community, this has resulted in the abandonment of Shona and Ndebele in these schools, thus demoting and minimising the influence of these two dominant languages within the Tonga community. This way, the language’s visibility is enhanced, and so is its status, thus concurring with Batibo (2005) who argues that the revitalisation of marginalised languages can only be successful if there is a removal of the pressure exerted by the dominant language. Ndlovu (2013) further argues that schools are most likely to succeed to promote language acquisition if they use the target language as the medium of instruction. To make this possible, the Tonga community through the School Development Committees (SDC) have lobbied the District Officer to preserve all temporary teaching posts for Tonga speaking people and also give first priority to Tonga speakers for vacancies for qualified teachers. The availability of Tonga speaking teachers makes possible the use of Tonga as a language for teaching and learning. By eliminating the use of Shona and Ndebele from the school curriculum, space is created for the visibility of Tonga.

Compulsory study of Tonga as a subject in all schools in the Tonga community also leads to the acquisition of Tonga by non-Tonga speakers. The inclusion of Tonga as the only indigenous language in the school curriculum within the Tonga speaking community means that all non-Tonga speakers attending school in Binga District are obliged to study Tonga as a language. At the same time, the fact that Tonga is used as a medium of instruction means that these non-Tonga speaking learners have no choice but to master their competence in the language. In this way, there is an increase in the population of Tonga users, which according to UNESCO (2003) Factor 2 and Milligan (2007) plays a crucial role in language vitality. Apart from increasing the Tonga speaking population, compulsory study of Tonga in schools also helps in enhancing

172 proficiency on the part of the new generation of Tonga speakers, thereby sustaining a positive attitude towards their language. Crystal (2000: 136) has the following to say about the effect of the presence of a language in the school system on learners:

If there is no presence in the school system at all, at primary and secondary level, the future of the language is likewise bleak. Conversely, if careful planning has managed to give the language a formal place alongside the dominant language, the result can be a huge increase in the pupils’ self-confidence.

The balance of positive language planning according to the Systems Model should extend from the education sector towards economic functions. The visibility of a language in the formal education space acts as a base for social status and value in the labour market. What is noteworthy from this research is the fact that the Tonga people have realised the importance of extending the economic currency of their language. There is a need according to Crystal (2000) for an endangered community to make its presence felt within the wider community by raising its profile through accessing domains outside the home. The realisation has resulted in the securing of job opportunities for Tonga speaking people, particularly in the education sector as discussed on the previous page. One parent interviewed indicated that even prestigious positions such as officers from the President’s Office are only filled in Binga by Tonga speaking people. Through the ZILPA initiatives, Tonga also managed to penetrate the spheres of mass media in 2001, with its inclusion on radio broadcasting under the 75% local content policy, thus securing broader economic spheres. A language’s presence in the media policy is crucial because it determines who is allowed to speak, write and be listened to. In this way, Tonga’s inclusion in the media presented an opportunity to create space, visibility, rewards and employment avenues for those studying Tonga. LP activities can therefore manipulate economic functions of Xish in order to change its prevalence by altering the perceived attractiveness of Xish (Milligan 2007). In other words, learning and studying a language that does not have any economic value is pointless and in most cases, people would in fact have a negative attitude towards such a language. People would eagerly learn a language if it has economic value, if it would provide an advantage for upward mobility (Makoni 2008, 2011, Webb 2002, Kaplan & Baldauf 1997, Batibo 2005, Nyika 2007, Makanda 2009.) I would therefore place Tonga in this instance at Stage 2 of Fishman’s (1991)

173

GIDS, Level 2 and 3 (regional and trade respectively) of Lewis and Simmons (2010) EGIDS. Both the education and economic sectors will ultimately achieve the same purpose, i.e. gaining Xish users, a factor that is crucial in language vitality (Fishman 1991, UNESCO 2003, Batibo 2005, Milligan 2007, Lewis & Simmons 2010).

Most minority languages encounter challenges when it comes to sustaining the development they would have attained because in most cases the language planning is bottom-up, without government support and consequently without any form of policy. In relation to UNESCO’s (2003) Factor 7, the Tonga community saw the need to engage government, with particular reference to language-in-education policy. This is because advances in educational policy should find their reflection in legal terms that would guarantee the linguistic rights of minorities (Smolicz 1995). Ndlovu (2013) further argues that -

Language legislation serves as a monitoring instrument that ensures that decision makers implement and monitor the implementation progress of a policy. Policy implementation succeeds when it has been formalised in legislation such as acts, ordinances and by-laws or issued as regulations, instructions, proclamations, administrative rulings and decisions of law courts.

These language policies should eliminate language-based marginalisation and enable speakers to use, preserve, promote, develop their language and above all feel that they, together with their languages are protected by the nation state. ZILPA engagement with government thus led to a two-fold victory. Concerning education, Tonga was accommodated in The Secretary’s Circular 1 of 2002. Tonga was also promoted from minority to indigenous language status, together with Shona and Ndebele in the revised 2013 Government of Zimbabwe Constitution.

In conclusion, Grin (2003) says, “let us simply observe that when something is valuable in the eyes of social actors, this is usually reflected in their behaviour.” Through village awareness campaigns, the Tonga people came to realise the value of their language and this was reflected in their commitment to the process of revitalising their language. Equally important was the engagement of relevant stakeholders. Collaborations with civil society brought in the expertise and resources that the Tonga people lacked.

174

5.3.3 What is the extent of the development of Tonga? Discussions in this research have traced the history of Tonga from the pre- independent era through to its status. UNESCO’s (2003) Nine Factors will subsequently be used to assess the degree of development of Tonga.

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Ian Smith in 1974 sparked a wave of negative effects on Tonga. In 1976, the Rhodesian government stopped the teaching of Tonga in the country and replaced it with Ndebele. The few teaching and learning materials that were imported from Zambia were burn during the Zimbabwe liberation war between 1976 and 1980. When Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980, it did not immediately revise its constitution and neither did it change its language-in- education policies. It simply inherited colonial language policies, which did not recognise minority languages. The only indigenous languages recognised during the colonial era were Shona and Ndebele and these dominated the minority languages. Because of that, there was neglect on the part of government to develop all the languages in its ecology. When the changes came, language policies were modelled on the ideology of monolingualism that sharing a single language is a guarantor of mutual understanding and peace (Crystal 2000), which, unfortunately was not the case. Due to this ideology, there was no political will on the part of the independent government to develop minority languages, Tonga included. There was, therefore no literary works in Tonga, it could not be used in any formal domain outside the home, the Tonga people were forced to use Ndebele or Shona in the school domain.

(a) An assessment of the Tonga language at independence (1980) using the UNESCO (2003) Nine Factors

FACTORS TONGA COMMENT LANGUAGE 1 Intergenerational Language 5 –safe: the Although the Transmission language was language was used used by all ages, by all age groups in from children up the home, the school-going age group was beginning to bring in the home domain, Ndebele and Shona which

175

they were learning at school(Sinansengwe 2013)

2 Absolute number of speakers Approximately 400 Information on 0004 population figures were taken from Ndhlovu (2004)

3 Proportion of speakers within With the population the total population of Zimbabwe estimated at 12 million, proportionately, Tonga speaking people make up approximately 3% of the Zimbabwe population (Ndhlovu 2004).

4 Trends in existing language 3 –dwindling In an interview, Chief domains domains: the Sinansengwe language is in indicated that the home domains use of Tonga was and for many relegated to the functions, but the home domain in dominant 1976 with the language begins banning of Tonga in to penetrate even schools. home domains 5 Response to new domains and 0 – inactive: the Chief Sinansengwe media language is not reiterated that at used in any new independence domains Tonga was only confined to home use.

6 Materials for language 2 – Written Materials that were education and literacy materials exist, but used for elementary they may only be level of primary used for some school before the

4 According to Ndhlovu (2008), it is difficult to ascertain the numbers of Tonga speakers because the 1992 & 2002 national population census questionnaires were conspicuous for their exclusion of questions on language and ethnicity. The same issue was experienced in the most recent census taken in Zimbabwe in 2012.

176

members of the banning of Tonga in community; and schools in 1976 were for others, they scarcely available may have a because most symbolic materials were significance. destroyed during the Literacy education liberation war in the language is between 1976 and not part of the 1980. school curriculum. 7 Government & institutional 1 – Forced At independence, language attitudes and policies assimilation: the the new government including official status & use dominant did not immediately language is the change policies sole language, regarding language while non- status and use. dominant English was the languages are official language neither recognised whereas Shona and nor protected. Ndebele were recognised indigenous languages. Not all minority languages were recognised then.

8 Community members’ 3 – many Sinansengwe (2013) attitudes towards their own members support also indicated that language maintenance; the imposition of others are Ndebele and Shona indifferent or may on the Tonga people even support had a negative effect language loss on Tonga since these two dominant languages were, and are still spoken in some homes. Even some chiefs in Binga claimed to be either Shona or Ndebele

9 Amount and quality of 1 – inadequate documentation

177

Table 48: Assessment of Tonga at Independence, 1980, using information from informants and material culture The process of revitalisation started on a serious note after the enactment of the Education Act of 1987. After realising that the government was not doing anything to develop their languages, minority languages came together through ZILPA and the help of civic society and embarked on initiatives to develop their languages. The Tonga community was not left behind. Initiatives from the Tonga community and civic society have resulted in the visible development of Tonga that we see today. Tonga is now studied as a subject in schools, tertiary colleges and universities, used as a medium of instruction in schools and is also used in the media. In the job market, Tonga speaking people are given first priority in government departments within Binga District, for example, in the Education Department, Health Department, Office of the President, Police Force to name a few. This imparting of vigour in Tonga has thus seen it reviving old domains and venturing into new ones. The language is also now stored in digital form. The importance of electronic corpora as valuable sources of evidence for linguistic and other language related analyses need not be overemphasised. Kennedy (1998: 88) observes that:

A linguistic corpus, in whatever form, is important as a basis for more accurate and reliable descriptions of how languages are structured and used. Corpora are very important tools in providing conclusive evidence for researches in fields such as lexicography, dialectology, semantics, syntax, psycholinguistics, phonology, sociolinguistics, code switching and code mixing.

With this digital foundation laid for Tonga, knowledge about the language is not only stored for future generations, but the basis for more research into the language and other inter-related issues is also laid. The degree of development described on Tonga in the table below is therefore a result of Tonga community initiatives.

(b) An assessment of the current status of Tonga language in 2016 using the UNESCO (2003) Nine Factors FACTORS TONGA COMMENT LANGUAGE

178

1 Intergenerational Language 5 –safe: the Data from the Transmission language is used interviews, by all ages, from questionnaires children up and personal observation show that Tonga is spoken in the homes by all generations. With the introduction of Tonga in schools as both a subject and medium of instruction (The Secretary’s Circular 1 of 2002), Tonga is now used both at home and at school

2 Absolute number of speakers Approximately According to 404 000 ZimStats (2012), Zimbabwe population grew at a rate of 1.1% between 2002 and 2012. This was the growth rate used to calculate absolute number of speakers.

3 Proportion of speakers within the 3% of Zimbabwe total population population of 13 061 239 according to Zimstats 2012 4 Trends in existing language 4- Multilingual domains parity 5 Response to new domains and 3 – receptive Tonga is now media used in a number

179

of new domains. It is now studied up to Ordinary level and at tertiary level where teachers are being trained to teach the language. It is also taught at university level (Muwati 2015). Tonga has also penetrated the mass media sphere and now has programmes on Zimbabwe’s FM Radio Station.

6 Materials for language education 4 – Written Teaching and and literacy materials exist, learning materials and at school, for primary and children are secondary school developing is now available. literacy in the This is, however language. Writing still an on-going in the language is process. not used in administration. 7 Government & institutional 3 – Passive No explicit policy language attitudes and policies assimilation exists for minority including official status & use languages. English, Shona and Ndebele still prevail in the public domain. The degree of development that is seen on Tonga today is a result of community and civic society

180

initiatives, hence bottom-up.

8 Community members’ attitudes According to towards their own language UNESCO (2003) Factor 8 Grade 5, all members value their language and wish to see it promoted. However, not all but most of the members wish to see their language promoted.

9 Amount and quality of 3 – fair Documentation is documentation being created on an ongoing basis

Table 49: Current Status of Tonga (2016)

5.4 CONCLUSION In this chapter, I have presented the findings from the questionnaires administered and the interviews conducted with various social actors involved in this particular research. The data was presented according to the research questions formulated in chapter one. The data was then discussed using multi-dimensional analytic tools that include Fishman’s 1991 GIDS, UNESCO 2003 Nine Factors and Milligan’s 2007 Systems Model of Language Planning.

The research revolved around the following three major questions:

 What is the motivation behind the revitalisation of the Tonga language?  What factors have contributed to this linguistic development?  What is the extent of the development of Tonga?

In other words, the research sought to identify the motivation for the revitalisation of Tonga. The data gathered pointed to various issues, which span across linguistic,

181 social, economic, educational and political reasons. The research also sought to identify factors that led to the success story that we witness today. The Tonga people realised the fact that they could not do it alone and therefore collaborated with other social actors for financial and technical support. At the centre of it all, however, lay the Tonga people’s dedication, commitment and deep rooted love for their language. Lastly, the study looked at the current extent of Tonga development. A lot of positive language planning has taken place to date. To name a few, the African Languages Research Institute at the University of Zimbabwe has managed to work on the standardisation of Tonga as well as Tonga corpora. The language is now used in the education domain from primary school to university level. The successful revitalisation of Tonga points to the idea that the bottom-up approach to language planning is a possible option for minority language communities whose governments are not eager to develop their languages.

182

CHAPTER SIX

TONGA: SUSTAINING AND MAINTAINING THE GAINS OF REVITALISATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter Five has dealt with the presentation, analysis and discussion of the findings of the study with regard to the research questions in Chapter One. It has thus addressed the question of motivation for the revitalisation of the Tonga language, the factors that made possible the revitalisation and has also touched on the current status of Tonga. Chapter Six now discusses ways of sustaining the gains of revitalisation as well as maintaining momentum in the development of Tonga. The discussion dwells on organised language management.

6.2 ORGANISED LANGUAGE MANAGEMENT According to Spolsky (2009), language management starts at individual level (simple language management), whereas organised language management happens in domains that range from family (micro) to beyond the nation state (meso). Language management in the following critical domains are going to be discussed:

 Home and family domain  Education domain  Media domain  Trade domain  Supranational level

6.2.1 Language management in the home and family domain Since individual people are also part of the home and family domain, simple language management strategies are going to be discussed as part of this section. Findings from the current study have shown that a certain percentage of both parents and learners within the Tonga community prefer English as their home language (see Table 37 & Table 38). These individuals may choose to use English as individuals and, through communication with other people, end up influencing others to diverge from Tonga to English. This is what Batibo (2005) was referring to when he argued that there is a need to remove the threat, or minimise its influence. In the case of Tonga, such a threat is possible as exemplified by the fact that languages other than Tonga are also spoken in Binga (see Table 25, 31, 38), but can be eliminated by building a

183 sense of linguistic pride within individual Tonga speakers. If individual speakers are motivated to use their language, it becomes easier for them to influence their families and the community at large. The idea of community awareness campaigns seems to have registered some degree of success in bringing awareness to individual community members of the importance of maintaining Tonga vitality. This degree of success needs to be sustained and elevated. It is therefore recommended that the Tonga community continue with these campaigns until the whole community speaks with one voice and adopt a positive and developmental attitude towards Tonga. This will also ensure the perpetuation of intergenerational language transmission.

Findings from this research indicate the fact that Binga District, the area under study, is a linguistically heterogeneous community where Tonga speakers have gained some degree of competence in the languages that exist in their community and have therefore become polyglots. This then presupposes the idea of a variety of language choices speakers have at their disposal, a linguistic repertoire with language options to choose from. Depending on speakers’ attitudes towards these other language options, if not managed properly such a scenario poses a threat to Tonga from the family level. Parents as language managers in the home therefore have to exercise their authority and control their children’s language practices and behaviour in a bid to guard against infiltration by other languages in the home domain. Spolsky (2009:15) argues that if the manager lacks authority, the management will be unsuccessful. What makes language management difficult, particularly when managing children, are external influences from their peer groups. Family directed language management competes with that engendered by peers. Parent managers therefore should not be random and isolated individuals. It calls for the majority of parents (all parents if possible) within a speech community to be managers in their homes, in their community. In this way, children will live in a community that shares the same values and attitude in as far as their mother language is concerned. This means that whoever they would associate with from their community would share the same language attitude. This collaboration between home and community is very crucial. Milligan (2007) argues that language vitality can be maintained by maintaining or increasing speaker numbers.

However, this is more of an ideal than practical situation. In instances where different families share different values on language, parents as managers are faced with the

184 responsibility of ensuring that their children associate with peers who share the same language values with them. Parents therefore have to be vigilant and show interest in their children’s language practices and behaviour. Spolsky (2009) citing Kulick (1992) indicates that parents in a village in Papua New Guinea had such little interest in the speech of their children that they were surprised when they were told that their children were no longer using the language used in the village. In the context of this study, this calls for vigilance on the part of the parents if the gains they have achieved so far on the revitalisation of Tonga are to be maintained and passed on to posterity.

Language management in the home is not only meant for children, but in some cases also for the parents themselves. Linguistically mixed marriages have become common as a result of increased contact of populations caused by urbanisation, migration, tourism, trade and study abroad (Spolsky 2009). Binga District is no exception to this marriage scenario. From the data gathered, there are parents whose first and mother language is not Tonga while their spouses are Tonga. This particularly becomes a challenge when the non-Tonga speaking spouse is the wife because it is normally the mothers and caregivers (in most cases, women) who spend most of the time with children and therefore take on the responsibility of managing these children’s language. Through this language socialisation, natural intergenerational language transmission is enhanced.

Now, when the mother is non-Tonga speaking or is not fluent in Tonga, it impacts on the language that she will naturally pass on to her children. She will pass on her first language to either the children, or a non-proficient form of the Tonga language. In such a case, there is a need on the part of parents to manage each other’s language use since parents are responsible for their children’s language. In other words, the vitality of a language and the perpetuation of intergenerational language transmission is the responsibility of every parent. Vitality, according to Fishman (1971) is, believing that the language should be spoken to one’s offspring. According to Stewart (1968), as cited by Spolsky (2009), vitality is speaking the language to one’s offspring. Since Binga is a patriarchal society, it means speaking the father’s language to the children.

Research has shown that it is possible for children to speak a minority language even when one of their parents is not a first language speaker and that it is also possible for children to speak a language, which is not spoken by their parents if there is no

185 language management in the home (Calvet 1998). Calvet did research on the use of Wolof (a minority language) by children in the town of Ziguinchor in Senegal. The results are shown in the table below:

Wolof father & Wolof mother Wolof father Non-Wolof mother father & mother

33.93% of 8.83% 4.5% 6.02% 14.58% pupils, of whom have

Table 50: Town of Ziguinchor: Wolof the First Language spoken in the Home Source: Calvet (1998:68).

From Calvet’s (1998) research, 33.93% pupils spoke Wolof but only 8.83% of them had Wolof parents. 4.5% had only a Wolof mother, 6.02% had only a Wolof father and the biggest percentage, 14.58% had non-Wolof parents. These pupils’ language use patterns were said to be influenced by their peer group. Due to parents’ lack of language monitoring and management, their children ended up speaking a language, which their parents were not speaking. Calvet (1998) calls it the influence of the milieu, which results in a case of social assimilation. Parents in Binga are encouraged to closely monitor their children’s language use patterns and immediately correct where there are deviations from the use of Tonga.

It is therefore crucial for spouses in linguistically mixed marriages in Binga to manage each other’s language use and be vigilant in monitoring their children’s language behaviour. It is equally important for parents in linguistically homogenous marriages to monitor their children’s language as well in order to avoid the situation in Ziguinchor where 14.58% of pupils using Wolof came from non-Wolof parents. Where such a situation occurs, it means that no intergenerational transmission of the language takes place. It also means that as the old generation passes on, so does the language.

6.2.2 Language management in the education domain The education domain comprises different sectors, among them, schools. Schools as sites of language management make use of a variety of agencies to enforce and manage language use. The following management agencies are going to be explored with reference to the Binga District situation: school development committees (SDCs),

186 teachers and student boards. These are managers at school level. There are also managers beyond the school domain but within the educational sector whose influence in schools can either sustain or destroy efforts in language revitalisation and development.

The School Development Committees are mandated to oversee the general running of schools and ensure that schools are following proper procedures. After the announcement of the Education Circular 1 of 2002, which states that minority languages should be taught from Grade three upwards, the Binga community made use of the SDCs to ensure the implementation of this policy in schools. These committees had to ensure that the provisions of the circular were implemented because the Ministry of Education had not put in place any implementation strategy. It is therefore recommended that SDCs continue monitoring policy implementation in all schools in the Binga District. This would avoid a situation whereby the indigenous dominant languages Shona and Ndebele would find their way back into the curricular at the expense of Tonga.

SDCs can also get involved in developing local school language use policies that enhance the visibility of Tonga. From personal experience, particularly at primary school level, it is a common practice in Zimbabwe for schools to enforce the use of a certain language, particularly English, and punish learners for violating the rule. Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson (1995) echo the same idea that the majority of children are still punished for speaking their mother tongue in English medium-based schools, while Spolsky (2009:113) states that similar draconian policies were exemplified by the legal banning of Kurdish in Turkey and in the punishment of pupils heard speaking the proscribed minority languages in schools. At one school in Binga, interviews with teachers show that almost all the teachers, with the exception of the Tonga and Agriculture teacher, prefer learners to use English within the school premises, in classrooms and outside. During lessons, the teachers would enforce the use of English while on the playground the responsibility of ensuring the use of English falls on the student/learner board, which consists of the school head boy, head girl and prefects. These would move around with notebooks jotting down names of perpetrators and their punishment would be met either at the end of the day when others will be going home or on Fridays after school. The punishment is normally in form of cleaning classrooms, the schoolyard, watering the school garden and, most

187 disgustingly, the rural school pit toilets. The last form of punishment is normally given to frequent perpetrators. Such a system has been safeguarding and maintaining the visibility of English in both rural and urban schools for years. It is recommended that the Tonga community through SDCs take advantage of this existing system and simply replace the existing language of preference from English to Tonga. The foundation has already been laid for a language management system, which the schools can simply adopt as a strategy of managing Tonga.

Spolsky (2009) states that the language policy adopted by an education system is without doubt one of the most powerful forces in language management. In Zimbabwe, the language-in-education policy stipulates that at both primary and secondary level (up to O Level/form Four), all learners must do at least one local language. This applies to all state schools. Private schools have a different language policy. They are not required to take on the compulsory teaching of a local language. Fortunately, all schools in the Binga District are government-managed schools and are therefore obliged to adhere to government language-in-education policies.

Looking closely at post independent education policies in Zimbabwe, the main problem has not been the policies themselves. Rather, the major hindrance has been the incongruence between policy and practice. In order to turn things around, there is a need for a management strategy that would ensure the implementation of the policy in all Binga schools. Language managers in this instance should be both internal and external. The driving force, however, should be the community since the revitalisation of the language is a community initiative. Most importantly, schools commonly reflect the ideological position of those who control them Spolsky (2009), in this case the Zimbabwean government through the Ministry of Education and Culture. These ideologies shaped by government policy in most cases do not take into consideration the needs and language ideologies of minority language speakers (Nyika 2007, Makoni 2011, Ndhlovu 2009). This explains why, there are language-in-education policies that accommodate minority languages in existence but no resources have been put in place for their implementation. The onus then falls upon communities to push forward community language ideologies by putting into practice policies that national governments ignore. Fishman (1991) points out that the success of Stage 1 of revitalisation is hinged on community participation. Without this community support, efforts at revitalisation can be in vain.

188

With the provisions of the Education Amendment Act of 2002/2006, the SDCs representing the community can monitor schools in the district and enforce the teaching in and of Tonga in Tonga speaking communities. At another level of management, teachers can enforce the use of Tonga in the classroom by encouraging the use of Tonga instead of admonishing learners for using it. This can be a real challenge because teachers come into the classroom with their own language ideologies, beliefs and preferences. Some are not even competent speakers of the language. In logical terms, it follows that a teacher can only effectively manage language use in the classroom if he /she is also competent in the language in question. Therefore, the management line stretches up to teachers’ colleges and District Education Offices, which deal with the recruitment, training, deployment and employment of teachers.

As a starting point, the Tonga Language Committee, through its advocacy programme officers, should lobby for a quarter system in the recruitment of student teachers by teachers’ colleges. Currently, the SDCs in Tonga speaking communities depend on the Tonga District Education Officers (DEOs) for Tonga speaking teachers, which in most cases are temporary teachers. The DEOs cannot, however, employ Tonga speaking trained teachers if the teachers’ colleges in the country are not training Tonga speaking teachers. Allocating a certain percentage for every intake to Tonga speakers at teachers training colleges would widen the pool from which the District Staffing Officers can pull teachers. One officer at the District Education Offices pointed out that even though there is a genuine need from the communities for Tonga speaking trained teachers, the district offices are faced with the dilemma that there just are not enough Tonga speaking trained teachers. This forces them to employ mostly Shona and Ndebele speaking trained teachers who, in some cases, have little competence in Tonga.

The issue of the calibre of teachers deployed to schools has a bearing on the choice of the language of learning and teaching and directly impacts on language management in the classroom. If there is no congruence in terms of the teachers’ and the learners’ language proficiency in Tonga, then a gap is created which disrupts the continuation of language use from home to school. Secondly, learners look up to teachers as their role models, therefore the teachers’ language also becomes more desirable than the language of the home. Language instruction in the schools then is

189 a key component in language policy, and is recognised as a key stage in Fishman’s (1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS) (Spolsky 2009). If the language of the home is to continue into the classroom, there is a need for the presence of Tonga speaking teachers in the classroom.

It is also crucial to be aware that ensuring that a language is taught as a compulsory language and is used as a language of teaching and learning is not enough to modify learners’ attitudes and linguistic behaviour. To validate or accord status to a language in the curriculum promotes positive attitudes towards the language and the validation of mother tongue in the school lifts the stigma attached to minority languages (Ndlovu 2013), particularly if the language is examinable. Examining a language at high school enhances the language’s degree of prestige and at the same time creates space for the language to be taught at higher levels of education. This increases what Milligan (2007) refers to as the perceived usefulness of Xish. It therefore becomes imperative that Tonga is examined at Grade Seven, Form Four and Form Six. It is also recommended that Tonga has a manager in form of a language specialist at the national examination board, Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council (ZIMSEC) and also at the Curriculum Development Unit (CDU) to oversee the teaching, learning and development of the language. The advantage of having such a post at the CDU is that it would ensure that whatever goes into the Tonga subject curriculum is derived from the Tonga culture. The creation of the same post at ZIMSEC would also ensure that whatever goes into the examination of the language is not derived from other languages and cultures, but from Tonga. Shona and Ndebele have language specialist representatives in these two units and it is recommended that Tonga should also lobby for one.

6.2.3 Language management in the media domain Makoni (2007, 2011), Nyika (2007) and Ndhlovu (2009) are of the opinion that ZILPA in 2002 was too eager to accept the “piecemeal concessions” form the Ministry of Communications when minority languages were accommodated in radio broadcasting but with minimum visibility. They argue that ZILPA should have asked for more and the researcher is also of the same opinion. Visibility of languages through the different arms of the media is crucial in the vitality of languages since it increases a language’s currency. According to Maseko & Ndlovu (2013), the use of African languages in both the print and electronic media has the added benefit of mainstreaming African culture,

190 thus fulfilling the democratic obligation of the media. They further argue that each indigenous group should be afforded the opportunity to practise its own culture, mirrored in its own language. In Native American communities, English language videos, television and popular music have replaced storytelling and other traditional media, contributing to a language shift among many Native American youth (Petersen 1997). If the media continue to flight its programmes only or mostly in dominant languages, it means it is used as a site for the perpetuation of hegemonic tendencies of these dominant languages at the expense of minority languages. This further impacts on the management of language in the home since the media, in particular television and radio, are used in the home domain.

6.2.3.1 Radio broadcasting In as much as national broadcasting can be used as a language management site, it is equally important that minority languages also use that same domain at local/community level. The history of community radio shows that the emergence of community radio stations was a result of a demand to break away from repressive regimes, which were worsened by the dominance of mass media (Mhangama 2004). Establishment of a local radio station in Binga can therefore be a breakaway strategy from the shadows of dominant languages and an opportunity that would enhance the theme of language management for this language. This would improve the visibility of Tonga and other minority languages since they are currently being obliterated by Shona and Ndebele. Radio Zimbabwe flights its programmes in Ndebele and Shona. In addition to that, they also have a substantive stake in National FM, a radio station that is supposed to be a preserve for minority languages. Of the fourteen hours of broadcasting a day allocated to National FM, Kaseko & Ndlovu (2013) argue that minority languages (Kalanga, Venda, Chewa, Nambya, Sotho, Xhosa, Chikunda, Hwesa and Shangani) are given approximately four hours thirty-five minutes and the rest of the time is set aside for Shona and Ndebele. This means Shona and Ndebele are dominating even on a national radio station that is meant for minority languages. Tonga, the language under study is not even included in the nine minority languages that are aired on National FM. A workable solution to managing minority languages and improving their visibility is therefore the establishment of community radio stations. South Africa is a good example in as far as the establishment of community radio

191 stations is concerned. The following are examples of a few community radio stations in South Africa and the languages used:

Radio station Language Province Area

Radio Khanya Xhosa Eastern Cape Butterworth

Vukani Community Xhosa Eastern Cape Cala, Elliot, Radio Aliwal North

Izwi Lomzansi Zulu KwaZulu-Natal Durban, Ethekwini Municipality

Qwa-Qwa Radio Sotho Free State Bergville, Harrismith

Moletsi Sepedi Limpopo Polokwane, Community Radio Blouberg Municipality

Table 51: Community Radio Stations in South Africa Source: http://capeinfo.com/radio-stations Radio in Zimbabwe is a good language management site since it enjoys wide coverage and the majority of the population affords a radio. It also becomes convenient taking into consideration that in most remote areas where we have these minority languages, there is no electricity, and where there is electricity, power outages have become the order of the day. Cellular phone technology has made radio broadcasting even more convenient since cellular phones these days come with radios. The establishment of Tonga community radio broadcasting is therefore a recommended strategy that would ensure the visibility of the language since information dissemination through radio would be in Tonga, for both locals and visitors. While community radio stations would act as sites for managing languages and pursuing a social development agenda (Maseko & Ndlovu 2013), national radio stations flighting in different languages would also reflect the linguistic and cultural diversity, which is characteristic of the Zimbabwe linguistic ecology. The Tonga community can, therefore, later lobby for the inclusion of Tonga on national radio broadcasting.

192

However, establishment of community radio stations alone is not enough to foster language management. There is a need to ensure that the radio programmes accommodate a wide audience to create a desire in the community to tune in to the radio station. Programming should accommodate both the young and old, Binga is a tourist district, so issues pertaining to tourism would be welcome. This way, all generations are catered for and there are higher chances of listenership. In his study, Peterson (1997) found that radio announcers broadcasting in Navajo, a minority language spoken in Southwestern United States of America, often tailor their programming to an older audience and the younger Navajos do not actively seek out Navajo-language broadcasts. This therefore is an issue that needs serious consideration since the lack of younger listeners would impact the future of the language (Peterson 1997).

6.2.3.2 Print media A newspaper publication dedicated to Tonga would improve the visibility and currency of the language. At the same time, having newspapers published in Tonga would further help in managing language use in the home, since news consumption would be in Tonga. As it is, the non-existence of both radio programming and newspaper publication in Tonga presents a challenge to language management in the home. The Binga community should take a leaf from South Africa where the concept of community newspapers is prevalent in both urban and rural areas. A few examples are shown below:

Newspaper Language Province Area Title

Isolezwe Zulu KwaZulu-Natal Durban

Die Son Afrikaans Eastern/Western/Northern Cape

Ziwaphi Mpumalanga Mbombela

Vukani Xhosa Cape Town/Western Khayelitsha, Cape Langa, Nyanga, Guguleth

Table 52: Community Newspapers in South Africa

193

Source: http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/component/content/article?id=73%253.

6.2.3.3 Television Tonga should fight for space on television through its advocacy programs to enhance its visibility. The main advantage of having space in television programming is the wide coverage that television enjoys. This way, the Tonga language would have the chance to penetrate even dominant language communities. Again, a case in point is South Africa where programs are broadcast in various languages on national televisions. A good example is Muvhango, a soap in Venda, which is broadcast by the South Africa Broadcasting Corporation (SABC2). In February 2015, this soapie was found to be the leading soapie in South Africa in terms of audience viewership (https://aredifefere.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/muvhango-a-no-1-soapie-in-south- africa/).

The issue of language presence in the media hinges on policy. There is a need for comprehensive language policies. The Tonga community therefore needs to engage government through the Ministry of Information and Publicity for the formulation of a policy, which sustainably promotes the language. While this is indeed a mammoth task, it is not insurmountable. The community did it successfully under ZILPA in 2001 when other minority languages were accorded space in the 75% local content programme. They can do it again and put Tonga on the media map.

6.2.4 Language Management in the trade domain Binga District is fortunate in that it is a trading district, which specialises in woodenwares, fish (fresh and dried, from the Zambezi River) and tourism. In all these trading transactions, the people of Binga should assert the use of Tonga as the language of business. This would encourage visitors and other language speakers in the district to use Tonga. The Cantonese minority community (Calvet 1998) share the same situation as the Tonga community. They are both a minority language community and an informal trading community. The Cantonese community, however, took advantage of informal trading markets and used them as preserves for the use of local minority languages. Likewise, the people of Binga can make Tonga the language of trade within their community. Whoever comes in to buy their wares would therefore need some degree of competence in Tonga, at least for communicative purposes. It is recommended that the community even label their wares in Tonga instead of the

194 dominant languages. In this way, the community will gradually capture this market in terms of language use, which will contribute towards Milligan’s (2007) positive language planning. Ultimately, this will result in an increase in the number of people who speak Tonga.

6.2.5 Language management at the supranational level Globalisation has extended geolinguistic borders. This has enabled collaborations on various issues across borders, for example cross-border trading. Similar collaborations are also possible in terms of language management. According to Muwati (2015), the University Of Zimbabwe (UZ) as an institution signed a memorandum of agreement with the University Of Zambia (UNZA) so that UZ can get lecturers from UNZA for its Bachelor’s degree in Tonga, which commenced in August 2016. The Ministry of Education, Sport and Culture (responsible for primary and secondary education) can do the same and get lecturers to train their teachers or alternatively send people to be trained as teachers in Zambia. At district or community level, student exchange programmes for language and cultural enhancement are recommended. This can also be done across the borders involving schools at which learners speak the same languages.

6.3 CONCLUSION This chapter has discussed various sites and agencies for language management. Gains of language revitalisation need to be consciously sustained through various strategies. The responsibilities for management lie with different stakeholders at various levels, from the individual to the national levels. Particularly where revitalisation efforts are initiated from the bottom, the onus falls upon the communities themselves to spearhead management efforts. The discussion also brings about the fact that the home domain is the central site for managing language acquisition and intergenerational language transmission (Fishman 1991). The education domain on the other hand contributes significantly to the modification and changing of attitudes towards minority languages (Milligan 2007), which makes it easier to manage language in the home. It has also emerged that international collaborations on language are possible from both top-down and bottom-up as strategies for managing languages. While initiatives may come from communities themselves, (Fishman 1991) points out that it is imperative that these initiatives are legalised through legislation to make them easier to enforce.

195

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

7.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter gives a summary of the research findings as guided by the research questions. It provides a discussion on the motivation behind the revitalisation of Tonga, the factors that contributed to the success story of the revitalisation of the language and the extent of the development. Since language planning is future oriented, the chapter also briefly discusses recommendations for the revitalisation of other minority languages in the country.

7.2 A SUMMARY ON FINDINGS

7.2.1 Summary on the motivation behind revitalisation of Tonga Findings from this research have shown that the Tonga community was motivated to revitalise its language by various reasons. Below is a summary of the motivations, which are not presented in any order of importance.

Linguistic loyalty and pride

From the different sources consulted for this research, it has emerged that one of the reasons for the revitalisation of Tonga is grounded in the issue of linguistic loyalty and pride, which the speakers exhibited towards their language. The Tonga people’s love for their language spreads through generations. Findings from the research (Chapter Five, Section 5.2.1) show that there is a general consensus on the speakers’ love for their language as depicted by the respondents from all ages’ preference on the use of Tonga as the language of the home. Intergenerational transmission of Tonga was therefore guaranteed. This love and loyalty exhibited by the Tonga people also portrays a positive attitude, which Lewis &Simmons (2010) refer to as an important issue in the process of revitalisation.

Use of Tonga as an identity marker Through loyalty and pride, the Tonga people are defining who they are, not as individuals or individual groups, but as a people. In other words, among other things, their language serves as an identity marker and they are proud to be identified with their language and its associations. Comparing Tonga speakers to other minority language speakers in Zimbabwe, Ndlovu (2013) indicates that the Tonga speakers

196 exhibit a positive cultural character. He further argues that Venda and Kalanga speakers lack a sense of language loyalty and pride in their language and thus have the tendency not to express their identity through Venda or Kalanga. Instead, the Venda and Kalanga people identify themselves through the dominant languages, that is, Shona and Ndebele respectively. The Tonga speakers on the other hand had always resisted the dilution of their pride and loyalty in their language and fought to keep their language, identity and culture undefiled and alive. This degree of pride and loyalty made it easy for the Tonga speakers to mobilise speakers towards Fishman’s ideological consensus stage. This stage is very crucial in any revitalisation programme because it gives room to community members to speak with one voice and have the same vision. This made it easier for the Tonga community to embark on Fishman’s (1991) ideological consensus stage. This acted as a very strong drive for revitalisation.

Fighting Shona and Ndebele dominance The Tonga’s exhibition of pride and loyalty to their language may also be taken as a reaction to Ndebele and Shona dominance. Through revitalising their language, they are sending a clear message that they do not want to be identified with any ethnic group. It is a form of resistance against hegemonic tendencies of dominant groups and declaring ethnic autonomy.

Fighting marginalisation and claiming linguistic citizenship An equally important reason for the developing of Tonga was the idea that the Tonga community was not happy with the marginalisation of their language, and ultimately themselves as a people. The Tonga people felt that their language was left out of the Zimbabwe linguistic citizenry as shown by the fact that it was left out in important domains like education. Revitalising their language was therefore a way of ensuring parity with dominant languages and claiming linguistic citizenship.

Perceived usefulness of Tonga language The motivation for the revitalisation of Tonga also hinges on what Milligan (2007) refers to as the perceived usefulness of the language. For them, the importance of their language is not only based on affective dimensions, they also regard their language as having currency in a number of domains, like education and the media, to mention a few. Their belief in the advantages of using Tonga in such domains gave them the motivation and zeal to see their language develop.

197

In an interview Chief Sinansengwe (2014), suggested that Binga is economically backward because Tonga language and culture are looked at as backward. According to him, this is because of two things. He indicated that Binga children have been struggling to pass their Ordinary Level examinations because they are taught in a language that they do not understand. As such, they cannot find any meaningful employment, which would help sustain their families and develop their communities. This is one of the various explanations for why Binga has been going through a vicious cycle of poverty and economic backwardness. The Tonga people therefore believe that the way out of this vicious cycle is through the revitalisation of their language so that it is fully used in schools and help their children in academic development, which is a stepping-stone towards economic emancipation.

7.2.2 Summary on the factors that have led to the development of Tonga Various factors have contributed to the success of Tonga revitalisation, among them are the following:

Support and commitment exhibited by the Tonga people From the findings of this research, it can be deduced that the revitalisation of Tonga also owes its success to the support and commitment that the Tonga, as a people showed towards initiatives meant for the development of their language. The success of any community development project depends on the willingness of the community itself in taking ownership of the project. The Tonga community took ownership of the Tonga revitalisation project, it was their language, it was their initiative, it was to their advantage that they revitalise the language. They therefore supported it with passion and zeal.

Their commitment is shown in their participation at every level of society, with awareness programmes starting from the home domain, to the village level, to the community. Communities worked together, with chiefs bringing in some degree of authority in the whole project. The Tonga speakers managed to mobilise themselves as an ethnic group and this contributed to the development of the Tonga language to where it is currently. The mobilisation was made easy by the Tonga speakers’ attitude towards their language and the transfer of agency to grass-root level, starting from the family. From a language planning point of view, this made intergenerational language transmission easier.

198

Support at individual level At individual level, Tonga speakers showed dedication and commitment to the revitalising initiatives. People with expertise in various areas that had to do with revitalisation of Tonga came on board and offered their expertise, in most cases, free of charge. Ndlovu (2013) revealed that Tonga writers sacrificially gave their time and resources during the writing of teaching and learning materials and were not looking forward to payment. He further asserts that the Tonga group had a contact in the publishing house from their group who facilitated the publication of their books when minority languages were deemed less viable by most publishers.

Extending domains-education The strategy to venture into the education domain was very crucial in terms of acquisition and building of prestige around the language (Fishman 1991, Milligan 2007, Nyika 2007, Ndlovu 2013). The setting up of active School Development Committees played an important role in ensuring that language-in-education policies were implemented. Traditionally, the government had placed agency in terms of implementing macro language-in-education policies at school level on school heads and teachers. Findings from the research, however, points to the fact that this agency was transferred from school heads and teachers to SDCs. In Binga District, the SDCs ensured that the provisions of the Education Circular of 2002 were implemented without compromise, thus promoting mother tongue education in the district. To enable mother tongue education, SDCs collaborated with District Education Officers so that priority was given to Tonga speakers in terms of teacher deployment. Tonga is now used as a language of learning and teaching in Binga District (Ndlovu 2013) and is also being studied as a compulsory subject. Through the efforts of SDCs, Tonga managed to find a functional space in education thus creating visibility and expanding domains, what Fishman (1991) and Milligan (2007) calls entering higher spheres and improving the perceived attractiveness of Xish.

The entering of higher spheres was also made possible by the fact that prior to the liberation war, Tonga was taught in Binga schools at elementary level (and was banned in 1976) (Ndlovu 2013, Makoni, Makoni & Nyika 2008, Nyika 2008, Mumpande 2006). Materials were then sourced from Zambia. This means that some teaching and

199 learning materials were now in existence and the Tonga speakers thus had somewhere to start from.

Cultural festivals Another factor that contributed to the development of Tonga was the exhibition of cultural festivals. This helped in keeping Tonga alive in the sense that it spread and consolidated awareness of the language, not only among the Tonga people in Zimbabwe, but also in Botswana and Zambia (Mumpande 2006, Nyika 2007, Makoni, Makoni & Nyika 2007), thus revealing the international flavour of the language. The fact that Tonga is a dominant language just across the Zambezi could have helped in instilling more vigour in the Tonga speakers. A festival mood also brings in a lot of fun and this makes it easier to get people engaged, particularly the young generation.

Involvement of external social actors The involvement of external social actors was crucial in the development of Tonga. Fishman (1991) points to the fact that linguistic revitalisation from bottom-up can only be successful if communities are self-sufficient. The Tonga communities, however, lacked sufficiency in terms of finance and expertise, hence the collaborations with external stakeholders. ZILPA is an example of collaboration between the Tonga Language Committee and other minority languages and they registered success in the domains of media and education. Save the Children Fund (UK), Silveira House, Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace provided the financial resources that were needed. The African Research Institute (University of Zimbabwe) and Silveira House offered expertise in terms of corpus development and lobbying respectively. Dr Lovemore Madhuku offered legal expertise in dealing with education policies. The bringing in of government through lobbying also helped in legitimising the output of the revitalisation activities. Zimbabwe Publishing House’s coming on board ensured publication of teaching and materials, an issue that is still a problem with other minority languages. The involvement of external stakeholders therefore helped fill the deficient gaps identified and thus sustained the development of Tonga.

The size of the Tonga population The publication of teaching and learning materials was also made possible by the population size of the Tonga people, which some authors assume to be the second largest ethnic group in Zimbabwe (Hachipola 1998, Magwa 2009, Ndlovu 2013). The

200 large Tonga population size acted as a bait to publishers since small sizes are not economically viable for publishers. Apart from publication, population size also has impact on other areas. From a language-planning point of view, a large number of speakers plays an important role in language vitality. It also becomes easier to implement language-planning strategies if the initiative is backed by a large population size.

The homogeneous nature of Binga District Another factor that helped in the development of Tonga is the homogeneous nature of Binga district. Other ethnic groups shied away from the remoteness of the area, which led to less contact and contamination of Tonga by other languages. Although Shona and Ndebele were used in schools, they remained just that, languages of school while Tonga remained the language of the home. This therefore enhanced intergenerational language transmission.

According to Ndlovu (2013), the Tonga group was described by both the Tonga and non-Tonga speakers as clearly the best and most well organised, mobilised, assertive, committed, dedicated, united, popular, visible, vocal, determined, persistent and resilient group. This was the basis of the development that is currently witnessed in the revitalisation of Tonga.

7.2.3 Summary on the extent of the development of Tonga The establishment of Tonga Language Committee (TOLACO) in 1976 marked the official launch, as it were, of reclaiming Tonga. Prior to that year, Tonga was only taught at elementary level. Since the formation of TOLACO, Tonga has witnessed great strides in terms of development. ALRI has worked on Tonga corpora. In terms of policy, Tonga is accommodated in the Education Secretary’s Circular 1 of 2002, which states that from January 2002, minority languages would be assisted to advance to a grade per year (starting from Grade Four since provision for Grade One to Three was already constituted in the 1987 Education Act). The language is now taught from preschool to form five. It was first examined at Grade Seven in 2011 and first examined at Form Four in October 2015. Tonga is not only studied as a language, but has been made a compulsory subject in the district of Binga. Teaching and learning resources, in terms of books have been published. The language boasts of learners’ textbook series in ChiTonga, titled Bwacha Lino, Bbuku Lyabana, from level one to level seven.

201

It is also now being studied at university level where the University of Zimbabwe is offering a three-year Bachelor’s degree in Tonga Language and Culture.

In terms of linguistic status, Tonga was upgraded from a minority language to an indigenous language in 2001 after government lobbying by ZILPA (Nyika 2008), from an indigenous language status to part of the sixteen official languages of Zimbabwe (Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013). In 2001, Tonga also managed to enter the media domain with the introduction of 75% local content on both radio and television. The Tonga group also established Tonga on-line, a group that manages on-line activities that promote and market the Tonga culture and activities. A marked difference in terms of linguistic development is seen in this language from the time it was banned in schools in 1976. It has been a long and difficult process but the gains of dedication, commitment and hard work are now visible.

7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS This section looks at recommendations from two perspectives, recommendations in terms of maintaining the momentum that we have seen in the development of Tonga and also recommendations for other minority groups who have not yet achieved what Tonga has achieved.

7.3.1 Summary of recommendations on the sustenance of Tonga development Tonga has witnessed substantial development but a lot still need to be done in order to sustain the development achieved so far and also push for further development. Below is a discussion on recommendations on the sustenance of the gains of Tonga revitalisation.

Continual lobbying of government History has shown that African governments are very good at creating great policies but they remain just that, policies on paper. Recently, in 2013, Tonga was upgraded to official language status (Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013). The constitution also states that all the state institutions and agencies of government at all levels must ensure that all officially recognized languages are treated equitably. There is, however, no implementation strategy given. The ideal situation would be that policy makers who are in most cases government agents put forward ways of implementing their policies. They can collaborate with the Ministry of Information and Communications. Since this is not forthcoming from policy makers, it means that the Tonga community should

202 continue with their initiatives to lobby both government and other stakeholders to ensure equitable treatment of Tonga vis-à-vis other dominant languages.

Translation of documents into Tonga One step could be the translation of government documents, for example, the constitution into Tonga. This would need external support since the Tonga community is not fit to meet the financial obligation associated with such an exercise. This can also be extended to other domains like education, health and others. A leaf can be taken from the University of Johannesburg’s language policy, which boasts of four languages, Afrikaans, English, Sotho and Zulu. Even the university application form is in four languages. The mandate to translate some of the existing documents into Tonga for these domains may also be extended to university translation units as part of community service. In other words, the Tonga people should not be content with what is on paper, but its practical application. This means there should be sustained dialogue with government. Where government does not commit, the onus falls upon the community to engage other stakeholders to ensure continuous development of the language.

Collaborations with teacher training colleges Accommodating Tonga in teachers’ training colleges is very crucial. As indicated earlier, other minority languages have been incorporated in teachers’ training colleges but Tonga is not. It is strongly recommended that there be collaborations between the Tonga group and teacher training colleges to widen the pool of teachers who are trained, in terms of content and the pedagogics of teaching Tonga. They can also collaborate with teacher training colleges across borders. The University of Zimbabwe has drawn a memorandum of understanding with the University of Zambia. The same can also be done for teacher training colleges. This way, the Tonga community is assured of Tonga speaking trained teachers, which would further enhance the use of Tonga as a language of teaching and learning. The extension of home language to the school domain sustains intergenerational language transmission as discussed earlier and has a positive effect on people’s perception and attitude towards the language. It also creates space for the visibility of the language and raises its linguistic status.

Creating more visibility in the media domain

203

The 2001 accommodation of Tonga in the media domain was a positive move. However, the frequency of Tonga broadcasting has little impact on revitalisation of the language. There is a need to forge links with the Ministry of Communications to increase the frequency of radio broadcasts. It is equally important that the broadcasts are not confirmed to Tonga speaking areas, but should also include non-Tonga speaking areas so that the language is visible nationwide. Entry into television broadcasting can be through drama, just like the Shona and Ndebele bring awareness of their language and culture nationwide through drama. The Tonga group would also have to come up with more enticing programmes that would lure nationwide viewership.

7.3.2 Recommendations for other minority groups The purpose of this research was to gain insight into the factors that led to the Tonga success story with the aim of extending these insights to other minority languages in Zimbabwe and elsewhere, which are struggling to revitalise. The discussion below hinges on possible recommendations for other minority languages.

Changing attitudes - fighting ethnolinguistic assimilation

Findings from this research have indicated that, among other factors, Tonga owes its development to the Tonga people’s commitment and positive attitude towards their language. The Tonga people’s love for their language shaped their perceptions and attitudes towards Tonga, perceptions and attitudes so strong that they did not only see the affective dimension of the language but also the language’s possible currency in other domains. With such a disposition, they were able to dispel the hegemonic tendencies of other languages and fight assimilation. This scenario is recommended as the first step in the process of revitalisation for other minority languages, the ideological consensus stage. Other minority language speakers must take pride in their own languages and culture and try to identify the currency in them in order to avoid ethnolinguistic assimilation. In most cases, people hold on to their languages if they see some value in them. Fought (2006) drives forward the idea that where two or more languages are in contact, ethnic groups should promote the idea that you are either “one of us” or you are “one of them” and language is seen as a key indicator of an individual’s positioning with respect to this. This is a clear no to assimilation. Contact in and of itself is not sufficient to trigger assimilation (Fought 2006). If such a

204 strong foundation is laid, it will give the speakers the drive to initiate and take ownership of revitalisation activities with regard to their respective languages.

Minority language communities should do it themselves – grass root initiatives Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson (1995) argue that, in general, African governments fail to act on the Cultural Charter for Africa, which the Organisation of African Union (OAU) heads of states adopted in 1976. Article 6(2) of the charter states that member states should promote teaching in indigenous languages in order to accelerate their economic, political and cultural development. Languages can only be used in the education domain if they are developed. The history of linguistic wars in Zimbabwe discussed in this thesis has indicated that the government lacks political will when it comes to the development of indigenous languages other than Shona and Ndebele. This means that for languages other than Shona and Ndebele, there is a need for language development initiatives from the grassroots level. Thirty-six years into independence, the government has proved that it has nothing to offer to minority languages except for declarations and policies without implementation as evidenced by the Secretary’s Circular of 2002 and, most recently the 2013 Zimbabwe constitution. The onus is therefore upon minority language groups to mobilise themselves and do something about their languages. Ndlovu (2013) indicates that Kalanga and Venda have a number of influential political figures and officials in strategic and influential positions in a variety of institutions. Such people should use their influence to push for the development of their languages. They should take a leaf from the Tonga community where only a few individuals of influence, managed to back their community and supported their cause. The bottom line is that individual language communities should be at the centre of developmental initiatives. Waiting for the government to do everything for them would not yield anything.

Harnessing the human and material resources The fact that ZILPA successfully managed to lobby for the inclusion of minority languages in the education domain as evidenced by the Secretary’s circular of 2002 is an advantage to all minority languages. The main challenges to the implementation of the provisions of this circular have been the human resource (teachers) and learning and teaching resources (books). For some minority languages, the human resource challenge has been mitigated through training of minority language teachers at teacher

205 training colleges such as Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo in Matabeleland Province, Venda is now being offered at Great Zimbabwe University. What the minority language communities need to do now is to harness this resource through collaborations with District Education Officers and universities so that those people trained to teach these minority languages be deployed in the respective language communities. Like what the Tonga people did, these should be given first priority. Communities can also forge links with teacher training colleges so that people from their communities, who speak their languages can be given priority at these training colleges. Teaching and learning materials can be accessed, as a short term measure, through collaborations with neighbouring countries where these languages are taught. A long term solution would be to train local people so that they can produce local written materials with a local flavour. The Tonga did it successfully. Other minority languages can therefore collaborate and adopt from Tonga what will be feasible for them.

Collaboration with other social actors The Tonga people realised the fact that they could not do it alone. Fishman (1991) points out the issue of self-sufficiency as crucial in grass root revitalisation. Minority languages in Zimbabwe however lack in various areas; particularly in financial resources and expertise in language planning. Therefore, where there is a need to involve external social actors, people should not hesitate as long as they collaborate with the right people. Collaboration can be with the donor community, taking into consideration the economic status of the country. There is also a need to involve language experts, human rights activists, ministries within government that have something to do with language. Collaborations with cross border language associations are also helpful. In South Africa, individual language groups have language committees, which see to the needs of particular language groups, for example, there is the Venda, Sotho, Shangani/Tsonga Language Committees. Shangani is also well developed in Mozambique.

Academic conferences Convening of academic conferences on minority languages is another recommendation. Although such an initiative may not necessarily come from the minority language groups, it is imperative to open such avenues for intellectual

206 discourses on minority languages. Such a platform can be used to explore challenges faced by individual language groups and map the way forward. One such conference was held in Binga from the 13th to the 15th of June 2012; with discourses, revolving around the resuscitation of Zimbabwe’s endangered languages through teaching, research and documentation, with particular reference to Tonga. Such conferences can also be used to increase the visibility of minority languages and create space for these languages within intellectual discourses both nationally and internationally.

7.4 CONCLUSION The findings from this research have shown that top down language planning in Zimbabwe does not accommodate minority languages. There is, however, an option for the revitalisation and development of minority languages, language planning from below. This bottom-up language planning has its own challenges but with careful strategies, success can be attained. The revitalisation of Tonga is an attestation to that. When using such an approach, there is a need for the language community to speak with one voice in support of their language. Every sector of the community should have a role to play. There is also a need for an objective needs analysis in terms of the desired expertise in human resource and the identification of areas that require urgent human attention. The order of activities has to be strategically set, which calls for strategists from various sectors.

Tonga revitalisation was made possible by concerted effort by the Tonga community and external social actors in the form of non-governmental organisations, education institutions, churches, individual people, and others. These social actors played a crucial role in creating awareness, financing, promoting and developing Tonga. The findings of this research have also shown that it is paramount that language communities engage government so that their efforts end up in legislations, declarations, policies that are government-sanctioned. It is equally crucial that both simple and organised language management strategies be put in place to sustain the gains of revitalisation. Other minority language groups that are struggling with revitalisation may thus take a leaf from the Tonga revitalisation process.

207

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acemoglu, D. & Autor, D. (n.d). Lectures in Labour Economics. (Book manuscript in preparation). Available on http://economics.mit.edu/files/4689. Accessed 06-02-14.

Ama, N.O. & Mangadi, K.T. (2013). Informal cross-border trade between Botswana and the neighbouring countries (South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia). A Research Report Submitted to the Office of Research and Development. University of Botswana, Gaborone

Andrews, R. (2003). Research Questions. New York: Continuum.

Angus, R. D. (2010). California Linguistics Notes. Vol XXXV (2). Fullerton: California State University.

Aredifefere. (20 February 2015). Muvhango a no.1 soapie in South Africa. Aredifefere le Tilo ngwana Rashaka. Aavailable from: https://aredifefere.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/muvhango-a-no-1-soapie-in-south- africa/. (Accessed 31 August 2015).

Author Unknown. Language as a Resource. http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/faculties/hass/scilt/publications/languageliteracy/chapt er3.pdf. Accessed 29-01-2014.

Babbie, E. (2004). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Babbie, E. (2005). The Basics of Social Research 3rd Edition. Belmont: Thomson & Wadsworth.

Baldauf, R.B. (1994). ‘Unplanned’ Language Policy and Planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Vol. 14: 82-89.

Banda, F. (2009). Critical Perspectives on Language Planning and Policy in Africa: Accounting for the Notion of Multilingualism. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics PLUS. Vol. 38: 1-11.

Basilwizi Trust. (2010). Sustainable Development Support for a Poverty Free Zambezi Valley. Strategic Plan 2010-15.

208

Basilwizi Trust. (2015). www.basilwizi.org/basilwizi/projects/tonga-online-project. Accessed 10 November 2015.

Batibo, H.M. (2005). Language Decline and Death in Africa: Courses, Consequences and Challenges. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Batibo, H.M. (1998). The fate of the Khoesan languages of Botswana. Brenzinger, M. (Ed). Endangered Languages in Africa. 267-284. Koeln: Ruediger Koepper Verlag.

Beukes, A-M. (2004). The First Ten Years of Democracy: Language Policy in South Africa. Paper read at the 10TH Linguapax Congress on Linguistic Diversity, Sustainability and Peace, 20-23 May. Barcelona.

Beukes, A-M. (2009). Language Policy Incongruity and African Languages in Post- Apartheid South Africa. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa. Vol. 40(1): 35-55.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.

Bourdillon, M. (1990). Religion and Society: A Text for Africa. Gweru: Mambo Press.

Calvet, L.J. (1998). Language Wars and Linguistic Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Capeinfo.com. (2015). Radio Stations in South Africa. Available from: http://capeinfo.com/radio-stations. Accessed 13 August 2015.

Chabata, E. (2013). Personal Interview. 10 December 2013.

Chabata, E. (2008). Language Development: Progress and Challenges in a Multilingual Zimbabwe. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. Vol. 26(1): 13-26.

Chabata, E. (2007). The African Languages Research Institute: A Milestone in Development of Zimbabwe Languages. http://lexikos.journals.ac.za. Accessed 23-02- 2013.

Chimhanga, S. & Chivhanga, E. (2014).The Triglossic Relationship of Zezuru, Karanga and other Shona Dialects in the Speech and Writing of Shona as a Language

209 in Zimbabwean Primary Schools. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education. Vol. 4(4): 44-50.

Chimhundu, H. (2005). Report on the Unification of the Shona Dialects by C.M. Doke with an Introduction by Herbert Chimhundu. University of Zimbabwe: The ALLEX Project.

Chumbow, B.S. (1987). Towards a Language Planning Model for Africa. Journal of West African Languages xvii (1): 15-22.

Collins Cobuild Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (New edition). (2003). London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Corson, D. (1993). Language, Minority Language and Gender: Linking Social Justice and Power. UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Council of Europe. (2010). Minority Languages: An Asset for Regional Development. Chamber of Regions 18th Session, 22 January.

Craith, M. N. (Ed). (2007). Language, Power and Identity Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage Publications.

Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Department of Provincial and Local Government (2008a). Multilingualism in local government. South Africa.

Doke, C.M. (1931). Report on the unification of the Shona Dialects. England: Stephen Austin & Sons Limited.

210

Dwyer, A.M. (2011). Tools and techniques for endangered –language assessment and revitalisation. Vitality and Viability of Minority Languages. New York: Trace Foundation Lecture Series Proceedings.

Dyers, C. (2008). Language Shift or Maintenance? Factors Determining the use of Afrikaans Among Some Township Youth in South Africa. In Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 38:49-72.

Ethnologue languages of the world. Available on: http://www.ethnologue.com.map/zw. Accessed 20 August 2012.

Fasold, R.W. (1987). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Fishman, J. A. (1990). What is Reversing Language Shift (RLS) and How Can It Succeed? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J.A. (1978). Positive Bilingualism: Some Overlooked Rationales and Forefathers. In J.E. Alatis (Ed). Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1978. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Fought, C. (2006). Language and ethnicity: Key topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R. & Gall, J.P. (Eds). (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction. Sixth Edition. New York: Longman Publishers.

Gardener, H. (1983). Frames of the Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardener, R. & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Gersten, R. & Woodward, J. (1994). The Language-Minority Student and Special Education: Issues, Trends, and Paradoxes. Exceptional Children. Vol.4: 310-322.

Government of Zimbabwe. (1987). Education Act. Harare: Government Printers.

211

Government of Zimbabwe. (2000). The Secretary’s Circular 1 of 2002. Harare: Government Printers.

Government of Zimbabwe. (2006). Education Amendment Act. Harare: Government Printers.

Government of Zimbabwe. (2013). Constitution of Zimbabwe. Harare: Government Printers.

Grin, F. (1996). The economics of language: survey, assessment, and prospects. In Grin, F. (Ed). Economic approaches to language and language planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. Vol 121: 17-44.

Hachipola, S.J. (1998). Survey of the Minority Languages of Zimbabwe. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Press.

Henn, M., Weistein, M. & Foard, N. (2006). A Short Introduction to Social Research. London: Sage Publications.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research. 2nd edition. California: Sage Publications Inc.

Heugh, K. (1999). Language Development and Reconstructing Education in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development. Vol 4(4): 301-313.

Heugh, K. (2002). Recovering multilingualism: language policy developments in South Africa. In Mesthrie, R. (Ed). Language in South Africa, 449-475. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heugh, K. (2007). Language and Literacy Issues in South Africa. In Rassool, N. (Ed). Global Issues in Language, Education and Development. Perspectives from Postcolonial Countries. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 187–217.

Hornberger, N.H. & Putz, M. (Eds). (2006). Language Loyalty, Language Planning and Language Revitalisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/faculties/hass/scilt/publications/languageandliteracy/ch apters.pdf. (Accessed 9 March 2015).

212

Hosseini, S.B. & Pourmandnia, D. (2013). Language Learners’ Attitudes and Beliefs: Brief Review of the Related Literature and Frameworks. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications. Vol. 4(4):39-51.

Huebner, T. (Ed). (1996). Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Papers on Language in Society 1959-1994. New York: Oxford University Press.

Juru, J. (2015). Personal interview. 2 July 2015.

Kachere, W. (2011). The Southern Africa Development Community: The Case of Zimbabwe. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Fort Hare.

Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (1997). Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Karam, F.X. (1974). Towards a Definition of Language Planning. In Fishman J.A. (Ed). Advances in Language Planning. Paris: Mouton De Gruyter. 103-124.

Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.

Lewis, M. P. & Simons, G.F. (2010). Assessing Endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique. 55 (2): 103‐120.

Lipembe, P.P.A. (2010). Exploring the micro-social dynamics of intergenerational language transmission: A critical Analysis of Parents’ Attitudes and Language Use Patterns among Ndamba Speakers in Tanzania. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of the Western Cape.

Madhuku, L. (n.d). A Constitutional Law Perspective of Section 62 of the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987. Unpublished.

Magwa, W. (2010). Language Planning and Policy for Mass Education: A Case for Zimbabwe. Cape Town: The Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society.

Magwa, W. (2008). Planning: Exploring possibilities of using indigenous African languages as language of instruction in education-The Zimbabwean Experience. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of South Africa.

Maja, I. (2007). Towards the Protection of Minority Languages in Africa. Unpublished Masters Dissertation: University of Pretoria.

213

Maja, I. (2008). Towards the Human Rights Protection of Minority Languages in Africa. New York: Hauser Global Law Program.

Makanda, A.P.T. (2009). The Language Question in Africa: Zimbabwe Case Study. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of South Africa.

Makanda, A.P.T. (2011). An investigation into the creation of a language policy and subsequent implementation in selected domains of life in Zimbabwe. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of South Africa.

Makoni, S., Makoni, B. & Nyika, N. (2008). Language Planning from Below: The Case of the Tonga in Zimbabwe. Current Issues in Language Planning. Vol. 9 (4): 413-437.

Makoni, S. (2011). A Critical Analysis of the Historical and Contemporary Status of Minority Languages in Zimbabwe. Current Issues in Language Planning. Vol.12(4): 437-455

Marowa, I. (2010). The Tonga People of Zimbabwe: Historical Memories and Contemporary Challenges of a minority Society. In Mbanaso, M.U. & Korieh, C.J. (Eds). Minority and the State in Africa. New York: Cambria Press. 171-194

Maseko, B. & Ndlovu, K. (2013). The Indigenous Languages and Linguistic Rights in the Zimbabwean Media. Online International Journal of Arts and Humanities. Vol. 2 (5):150-156.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. Vol. 50(4): 370-396.

Mavunga, G. (2010). The Use of Shona as the Medium of Instruction in the First Three Grades of Primary School in a Tonga-Speaking-Community- Teachers’ and Parents’ Perceptions. Language Matters. Vol 41(1): 126-147.

May, S. (2006). Language Policy and Minority Rights. In Ricento, T. (Ed). An Introduction to Language Policy, 255-272. New York: Blackwell.

May, S. (2012). Language and Minority rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. London: Routledge.

214

McGroarty, M., Beck, A. & Butler, F. (1995) Policy issues in assessing indigenous languages: A Navajo case. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 16 (2): 323–343.

Media Club South Africa. (2015). Community Radio Stations. http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/component/content/article?id=73%253. (Accessed 13 August 2015).

Mhangami, P.M. (2004). The Role of Community Media in Development: A Case Study of Cato Manor Development Project. Unpublished MA Dissertation. University of KwaZulu Natal.

Miller, R.L. & Brewer, J.D. (Eds). (2003). The A-Z of Social Research. London: Sage Publications.

Milligan, L. (2007). A Systems Model of Language Planning. CamLing. Pg 192-198

Moto, F. (2009). Language, Power & Society. Pretoria: UNISA.

Msindo, E. (2012). Ethnicity in Zimbabwe: Transformations in Kalanga and Ndebele Societies 1860-1990. New York: University of Rochester Press.

Mühlhäusler, P. (2000). Language Planning and Language Ecology. Current Issues in Language Planning. Vol. 1(3): 306-367.

Mumpande, I. (2006). Silent Voices: Indigenous Languages In Zimbabwe. Harare: Weaver Press.

Muranda, Z. (2004). Dissertation Writing Concepts and Practice. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications

Murungudzi, T., Chiwewe, P. & Mhute, I. (2014). Harnessing Digital Technology in the Revitalisation of the Linguistic Heritage of Zimbabwe: Possibilities and Challenges.

Greener Journal of Science, Engineering and Technological Research. Vol. 4(1): 17- 29. Murungudzi, T. (2009). English as a Language of Learning and Teaching: Perspectives of Secondary School Teachers in Masvingo District (Zimbabwe). MA Dissertation. UNISA.

Muwati, I. (2015). Personal Interview. 30 March 2015.

215

Ndlovu, E. (2013). Mother Tongue Education in Official Minority Languages of Zimbabwe: A Language Management Critique. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of the Free State.

Ndhlovu, F. (2008). The Role of Discourse in Identity Formation and the manufacture of Ethnic Minorities in Zimbabwe. Journal of Multilingual Discourse. Vol. 2(2):131-147.

Ndhlovu, F. (2008). Gramsci Doke and the Marginalisation of the Ndebele Language in Zimbabwe. Journal of Multilingual Multicultural Development. Vol. 27 (4): 305-318.

Ndhlovu, F. (2010). Language Politics in Postcolonial Africa Revisited: Minority Agency and Language Imposition. Language Matters. Vol. 41(2):175-192.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. & Mhlanga, B. (2013). Bondage of Boundaries and Identity Politics in Post-colonial Africa. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa.

Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches 4th edition. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Neustupny, J.V. & Nekvapil, J. (2003). Language Management in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning. Vol. 4(3/4): 18 – 366.

Nyika, N. (2007). A Case Study of Civil Society Organisations’ Initiatives for the Development and Promotion of Linguistic Human Rights in Zimbabwe 1980-2004. University of the Witwatersrand: Unpublished PhD Thesis.

Nyika, N. (2008). Language Activism in Zimbabwe: Grassroots Mobilisation, Collaborations and Action. Language Matters: Studies in the languages of Africa. Vol. 39(1):3-17.

Paulston, C. (1993). Language Regenesis: A Conceptual Overview of Language Revival, Revitalisation and Reversal. In Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Vol. 14:275-286.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Peresuh, M. & Masuku, J. (2002). The role of the primary language in the bilingual- bicultural education in Zimbabwe. Zambezia xxix (1): 27-39.

216

Peterson, L.C. (1997). Tuning in to Navajo: The Role of Radio in Native Language Maintenance. Northern Arizona University.

Phaala, P. (2006). The Feasibility of Northern Sotho as a Language of Commerce and Industry. University of Johannesburg: Unpublished PhD dissertation.

Phillipson, R., Rannut, M. & Skutnubb-Kangas, T. (1995). Introduction. In T.

Ranger, T.O. (1985). Peasant consciousness and guerrilla war in Zimbabwe: A comparative study. North America: University of California Press.

Ricento, T. (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Rossman, G.B & Rallis, S.F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education. Vol. 8: 15-34.

Ruiz, R. (1995). Language Planning Considerations in Indigenous Communities. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education. Vol. 19(1): 71-81.

Sibanda, N. (2013). The Role of Tonga Language and Culture Committee (TOLACCO), Roman Catholic and Community Leadership in the Promotion of Literacy in Binga Community in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Science and Research. Vol. 2 (8): 343-351.

Sinansengwe, M.T.C. (2013). Personal interview. 4 &6 July 2013.

Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.). (1995). Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Skutnubbs-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights. New York: Routledge.

Skuttnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (1995). Language Rights in Post-Colonial Africa. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and R. Phillipson (eds.), Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

217

Smolicz, J.J. (1995). Australia’s Language Policy and Minority Rights: A Core Value Perspective. In Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (Eds). Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. New Yolk: Mouton de Gruyter.

Spolsky, B. (2009). Language Management.UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sullivan, T. J. (2001). Methods of social research. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.

TOLACO. (2002). Report on TOLACO workshop 29-30 July 2002. Binga: Zimbabwe

Tollefson, J.W. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. New York: Longman.

Tremmel, M. (1994). The People of The Great River: The Tonga Hoped the Water Would Follow Them. Gweru: Mambo Press.

UNESCO Ad hoc group on Endangered Languages. (2003). Language Vitality and Endangerment. Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages, Paris, 10-12 March 2003 UNESCO (2003)

UNESCO. (n.d) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_of_Endandered_languages Accessed 21-08-12.

University of Southern California Libraries. (n.d). Organizing your Social Sciences Research Paper: Types of Research Designs. http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide.

Viriri, W. (2004). The Contribution of Missionaries to Shona Lexicography. Lexikos . Vol. 14: 349-358.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Mass, Harvard University Press.

Webb, C. & du Plessis, T. (Eds). (2006). Studies in Language Policy in SA: The Politics of Language in SA. SA: Van Schaik Publishers.

Webb, V. (2002). Language in South Africa: The Role of Language in National Transformation, Reconstruction and Development. Armsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

218

Webb, V. (2009). Multilingualism in South Africa: The Challenge to Below. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa. Vol. 40 (2): 190-204.

Willis, J.W. (2007). Foundations of Qualitative Research – Interpretive and Critical Approaches. USA: Sage Publications.

Woodbury, T. (1996). Opening Speech for the Endangered Languages Fund. http://www.ogmios.org/ogmios_files/44.htm.

Wright, L. (2002). Language as a ‘Resource’ in South Africa: The Economic Life of Language in a Globalising Society. Rhodes University.

Yang, B. & Wang, R. (2016).Language Policy: A Systematic, Functional Linguistic Approach. Shanghai: Routledge.

ZILPA. (2001). Minutes of ZILPA meeting held on 7 April 2001. Bulawayo: Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe Government. (1990). Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act 7, Chapter 4:01. Harare: Government Printers.

Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency. (2012). National Report on Census 2012. Harare: Government Printers.

Zvobgo, C.J.M. (1996). A History of Christian Missions in Zimbabwe 1890-1939. Gweru: Mambo Press.

219

APPENDICES

APPENDIX (i): QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCHOOL- GOING CHILDREN

This questionnaire seeks to establish the factors that have led to the revitalisation of the Tonga language and also to assess the extent of the development of the Tonga language. In order to maintain anonymity and confidentiality, please do not write your name. The information you provide will be used for academic purposes only.

Please indicate the appropriate answer by placing an X.

1. Sex:

Male

Female

2. Age in years:

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-29

3. In which province were you born?

Manicaland

Mashonaland Central

Mashonaland East

Mashonaland West

Masvingo

Matabeleland North

220

Matabeleland South

Midlands

4. What is your level of education? Please indicate grade or form.

Primary school level

Ordinary level

Advanced level

5. What is your parents’ highest level of education?

Mother

Father

6. What would you say is the home language/s that you first spoke as a child?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

221

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

7. Please indicate your parents’ first language.

Father

Mother

8. What would you say is the home language/s that you currently speak in your home?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

222

9. What would you say is your first language (This is the language that you feel you can communicate best in. Please note that it could be the same as your home language)?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

10. What would you say is the language you use the most to communicate with others (parents, siblings, relatives, neighbours, and teachers) on a daily basis?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

223

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

11. I feel proud talking in Tonga.

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly disagree nor disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

12. Give reasons for your answer to question 11 above.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………

13. Which language do your parents want you to use?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

224

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

14. When you have children of your own one day, would you use the Tonga language as your home language with them?

YES NO

15. I feel proud now that Tonga is examined at Grade 7 level and taught as a subject at secondary school level.

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly disagree nor disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

16. Give a reason for your answer to question 15 above.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

17. Is learning Tonga compulsory for all pupils at your schools?

YES NO

225

18. After you finish your high school, would you want to be taught using the Tonga language at college or university level?

YES NO

19. Indicate the subjects in which your teachers use Tonga as the language of teaching.

English

Maths

Content

Geography

History

Science

Commerce

Computer Studies

None

Agriculture

Others (please specify)

20. Are there textbooks written in Tonga for these subjects?

YES NO

21. I understand easily when our teachers teach us using the Tonga language.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree

1 2 3 4 5

22. What language would you want your teachers to use when teaching you?

226

English

Tonga

Ndebele

Shona

23. Do you think that it is important that you master the Tonga language?

YES NO

24. Give reasons for your answer to question 23 above.

227

APPENDIX (ii): QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS AND CHIEFS.

PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS BY PLACING AN X OVER THE RELEVANT BLOCK, OR BY WRITING THE ANSWER IN CLEAR WRITING IN THE SPACE PROVIDED

1. Sex:

Male

Female

2. Age in years:

15-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

60-70

71 and above

3. Do you have Zimbabwean citizenship?

YES NO

4. In which province were you born?

Manicaland

228

Mashonaland Central

Mashonaland East

Mashonaland West

Masvingo

Matabeleland North

Matabeleland South

Midlands

5. What is your highest level of education?

Below Ordinary level

Ordinary level

Advanced level

Certificate / Diploma

Bachelors’ degree

Honours degree

Masters’ degree

Doctoral degree

Other (please specify)

6. What is your occupation? …………………………………………………………

7. Indicate the ages of your children if applicable.

0-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-30

229

31-40

8. What would you say is the home language/s that you first spoke as a child?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

9. What would you say is the home language/s that you currently speak in your home?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

230

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

10. What would you say is your first language (This is the language that you feel you can communicate best in. Please note that it could be the same as your home language)?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

231

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

11. What would you say is the language you use the most to communicate with others (spouse, children, relatives, neighbours) on a daily basis?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

12. What language/s do your children use at home?

232

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

13. What language do you want your children/grandchildren to use at home?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

233

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

14. Give a reason for your answer to question 13 above.

15. I feel proud talking in Tonga.

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly disagree nor disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

16. Give a reason for your answer to question 15 above. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………

17. Do you think there is any threat to Tonga language?

YES NO

18. Who/what is threatening Tonga? .………......

19. What has your community done to ensure that Tonga is kept alive?

234

20. Are there people or organisations from outside helping you keep Tonga alive?

21. Who are these people/organisations?

………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………

22. What have these people/organisations done?

23. What are they currently doing?

24. I feel proud now that Tonga is examined at Grade 7 level and taught as a subject at secondary school level.

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly disagree nor disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

25. Do you that it is possible to use the Tonga language in colleges and universities?

YES NO

26. Give reasons for your answer to question 25 above.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………...

27. Your children have a positive attitude towards the learning of Tonga.

235

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree

1 2 3 4 5

28. What measures have been put in place to ensure that enough human resources (teachers) are made available?

29. What measures have been put in place to ensure that enough textbooks and other teaching-learning resources are made available?

30. Is learning Tonga compulsory for all schools in the Tonga-speaking communities?

YES NO

31. In what other context/s is Tonga used?

Trading

On the radio

On TV

Newspapers

National Anthem

Government offices

Parliament

Others (please specify)

236

APPENDIX (iii): QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS BY PLACING AN X OVER THE RELEVANT BLOCK, OR BY WRITING THE ANSWER IN CLEAR WRITING IN THE SPACE PROVIDED

1. Sex:

Male

Female

2. Age in years:

20-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and above

3. In which province were you born?

Manicaland

Mashonaland Central

Mashonaland East

Mashonaland West

Masvingo

237

Matabeleland North

Matabeleland South

Midlands

4. What is your highest level of education?

Below Ordinary level

Ordinary level

Advanced level

Certificate / Diploma

Bachelors’ degree

Honours degree

Masters’ degree

Doctoral degree

Other (please specify)

6. What would you say is the home language/s that you first spoke as a child?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

238

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

7. What would you say is the home language/s that you currently speak in your home?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

239

8. What would you say is your first language? (This is the language that you feel you can communicate best in. Please note that it could be the same as your home language)

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

9. What would you say is the language you use the most to communicate with others (spouse, children, siblings, relatives, neighbours) on a daily basis?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

240

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

10. What language/s do your children use at home?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

241

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

11. What language do you want your children/grandchildren to use at home?

Chewa

Chibarwe

English

Kalanga

Koisan

Nambya

Ndau

Ndebele

Shangani

Shona

Sotho

Tonga

Tswana

Venda

Xhosa

Other (please specify)

12. Give a reason for your answer to question 11 above.

13. I feel proud speaking in Tonga.

242

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly disagree nor disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

14. Give a reason for your answer to question 13 above.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

15. Do you think there is any threat to the Tonga language?

YES NO

16. Who/what is threatening Tonga in your view?

17. What has your community done to ensure that Tonga is kept alive?

18. Are there people or organisations from outside helping you keep Tonga alive?

19. Who are these people/organisations?

20. What have these people/organisations done?

21. What are they currently doing?

243

22. I feel proud now that Tonga is examined at Grade 7 level and taught as a subject at secondary school level.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree

1 2 3 4 5

23. Give a reason for your answer to question 22 above. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………….

24. Your learners have a positive attitude towards the learning of Tonga.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree

1 2 3 4 5

25. What measures have been put in place to ensure that enough human resources (teachers) are made available? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

26. What measures have been put in place to ensure that enough textbooks and other teaching-learning resources are made available?

27. Are you teaching Tonga as a subject only or you are also using it as a language of instruction?

YES

244

28. If using it as a language of instruction, what advantages has it brought into the classroom?

29. Are there any challenges that you are encountering using Tonga as the medium of instruction?

YES

30. If yes, what are the challenges?

31. What measures have been put in place?

32. Your learners enjoy being taught using Tonga as the language of instruction.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly disagree agree nor agree disagree

1 2 3 4 5

33. Motivate your answer for question 32.

34. Which language/s do learners prefer as medium of instruction?

245

English

Tonga

Shona

Ndebele

35. Do you think that it is possible to use the Tonga language in colleges and universities as medium of instruction?

YES NO

36. In what other context/s is Tonga used?

Trading

On the radio

On TV

Newspapers

National Anthem

Government offices

Others (please specify)

37. What do you think are the general benefits of developing the Tonga language?

246

APPENDIX (iv): TONGA LANGUAGE COMMITTEE AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

1. What does your organisation do? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. Who are the constituent members of this organisation? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. What are your responsibilities in this organisation? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 4. Why did you choose to research on, and develop, Tonga? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5. What have you done so far? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 6. What are your achievements? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

7. What challenges did you encounter as you worked on the Tonga language project? ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

247

………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 8. How did you deal with those challenges? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 9. What level of language development has Tonga achieved so far? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 10. What has been done with respect to the Tonga language so far? ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… 11. In which new domains is the use of Tonga acceptable?

………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………….

12. Do you intend to do more? If yes, elaborate.

………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………

13. How do you envisage the future of the Tonga language?

248

APPENDIX (v): LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

Departement Linguistiek Department of Linguistics Lefapha la tša Maleme Isigaba esiphathelene nezilimi

14 June 2014

Whom it May Concern

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION FOR JUBILEE CHIKASHA

Mrs Jubilee Ckikasha is a PhD student under my supervision at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. Mrs Chikasha is in the process of collecting data for her PhD thesis entitled Linguistic Revitalisation: Tonga in Zimbabwe. She will be conducting interviews and collecting any relevant information from relevant people in the Binga District area.

We are therefore kindly requesting that you allow her to carry out this research and offer her any assistance necessary to achieve the objectives of this research.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

Anne-Marie Beukes

Professor and Head of Department Department of Linguistics

Tel: 0115592694 B Ring 506, Auckland Park Kingsway Campus

249

APPENDIX (vi): LETTER OF CONSENT

Departement Linguistiek Department of Linguistics Lefapha la tša Maleme Isigaba esiphathelene nezilimi

14 June 2014

Dear Respondent

Thank you for your willingness to take part in this research project. This research is being done by Mrs Jubilee Chikasha, a PhD student at the University of Johannesburg. I am in the process of collecting data for my thesis titled Linguistic Revitalisation: Tonga in Zimbabwe.

The purpose of this my research is to investigate the factors that have led to the revitalisation of the Tonga language. Your participation in this research is greatly appreciated. Interviews will take no more than one hour of your time. Questionnaires will be administered which I will kindly collect within one week after you have received them.

The following should be taken note of: • Your participation in this project is greatly appreciated. Participation is only by voluntary consent. • If you choose to participate, your full cooperation and undivided attention will be required. • The findings of this study will be used primarily for academic purposes only. • For the purposes of confidentiality and anonymity, no names will be mentioned, unless there is prior consent. • Please sign this letter to indicate that you have read and understood the information in this letter, and also that you agree to take part or give consent to your minor child to take part in this research project.

Signature………………………………………………..

If you would like any more information, or if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

250

Jubilee Chikasha

251

APPENDIX (vii): ETHICAL CLEARANCE

The Faculty of Humanities Academic Ethics Committee University of Johannesburg 13th February 2014

Prof. A-M Beukes (Supervisor) Department of Linguistics and Literary Theory Faculty of Humanities University of Johannesburg

ETHICAL CLEARANCE

Title of research: Linguistic Revitalisation: Tonga in Zimbabwe Student name: Ms J Chikasha Student No. 201339674

Dear Prof. A-M Beukes

It is the judgement of the “Faculty of Humanities Academic Ethics Committee” that the research proposal, and the relevant documents submitted to us in support of a request for Ethical Clearance, has clearly indicated that the standard practice of ethical professionalism will be upheld in the research.

From a research ethics point of view, the Faculty of Humanities Academic Ethics Committee therefore endorses the proposed research.

Yours sincerely

Professor Zelda G Knight Chair: Faculty Ethics Committee

252

CC: Chair of HDC, Professor A Van Breda

253