Linguistic Borrowing in a Language Contact Situation

LINGUISTIC BORROWING IN A LANGUAGE CONTACT SITUATION:

THE CASE OF IGIKURIA AND ENGLISH IN MIGORI COUNTY,

KENYA.

RAEL MOGESI RIRO C50/CE/24446/2012

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED

TO THE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN

PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH AND LINGUISTICS, KENYATTA

UNIVERSITY

JULY, 2020

DECLARATION

Declaration by the student

This research project is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other University.

Rael Mogesi Riro………………………. Date …………………………….

Supervisors’ Approval

This research project has been submitted with our approval as University supervisors.

Dr. Kenneth Ngure R………………………. Date ………………………….

Department of Literature, Linguistics and Foreign Languages

Dr. Joyce Wangia………………………………. Date …...…………….…

Department of Literature, Linguistics and Foreign Languages

iii

DEDICATION

This research project is dedicated to my loving husband James Mwita for the vast support he gave me during my studies and to my four lovely children: Ivy Gati,

Ashley Nchagwa, Cyril Nyaikoba and Larry Moronya who gave me hope and strength to move on throughout my studies.

I cannot forget my late loving father Mwalimu David Riro who always made me feel like a queen and the best of all. From him I learnt the strength of determination and the adage never give up. His great affection for me throughout his life inspired me and made me what I am today. May the almighty God rest your soul in eternal peace.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am honestly thankful to the Almighty God for being with me every step of my way. His grace has been adequate and devoid of Him; I would not have reached this far.

I am deeply indebted to my supervisor’s Dr Ngure and Dr Wangia for their intellectual advice and precious effort which has shaped this work to its present form. Similarly, I am thankful to all the members of the Literature, Linguistics and

Foreign language’s Department, Kenyatta University for their support and encouragement. Special gratitude to the non-academic staff too.

I would like to appreciate my principal Mr Eustace Njeru for his overwhelming support and permission to see my supervisors. I would also want to thank my colleagues Gabriel Gathua, Lydia Nyabisi Elizabeth Wanjiku and Calvin Waore, whose support and positive criticism made this journey shorter and valuable.

Without my respondents, this work would never have been. Thank you for your endurance during the interviews and for the data you willingly offered.

I cannot miss to thank my meticulous research assistants my husband James Mwita and my mother Eliada Riro for their patience during the long and dreary hours of

field research. Their commitment has brought this work to completion. My appreciation also goes to entire David Riro’s family for their steadfast support, prayers and confidence in me. Thank you for always being there for me.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Noun classes ...... 24

Table 2: Frequency of occurrence of borrowed nominals per semantic field in regard to data sources...... 38

Table3: Frequency of occurrence of cultural lexical nominals borrowed in relation to the age of respondents...... 47

Table 4: Frequency of occurrence of cultural lexical nominal borrowed in relation to the gender of respondents per semantic field...... 50

Table 6: Examples of borrowed lexical nominals from English into Igikuria in field of education ...... 53

Table 7: Examples of borrowed lexical nominals from English into Igikuria in the semantic field of transport ...... 57

Table 8: Examples of borrowed lexical nominals from English into Igikuria in the semantic field of House hold items ...... 60

Table 5: Igikuria noun class pairing ...... 63

Table 9: Reasons for borrowing nominals from English into Igikuria ...... 66

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Percentage of lexical nominals borrowed per semantic field...... 46

viii

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

Borrowing: The process of speakers adopting words from a source

language into their native language.

Lexical borrowing: The integration of foreign terms into the language.

Cultural borrowing: Borrowed elements that fill a lexical gap in the recipient

language.

Core borrowing: Borrowed elements that roughly correspond to elements

already existing in the recipient language.

Borrowing transfer: The influence a second language has on a previously acquired

language, which is typically one's native language.

Prestige: The level of respect accorded to a language or dialect as

compared to that of other languages or dialects in a speech

community.

Nominal: Refers to a noun

TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ...... ii

DEDICATION ...... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS ...... viii

ABSTRACT ...... xiii

CHAPTER ONE ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.0 General Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Background to the study ...... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ...... 8

1.3Research Objectives ...... 9

1.4 Research questions ...... 9

1.5 Research Assumptions ...... 10

1.6 Justification and significance of the Study...... 10

1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study ...... 11

1.8 Summary ...... 13

CHAPTER TWO ...... 14

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 14

2.0 Introduction to literature review ...... 14

2.1.1 Linguistic Borrowing ...... 14

2.1.2 Studies on Borrowing in Other Bantu Languages ...... 17

2.1.3 Morphological Adaptation of Borrowed Words ...... 19

2.1.4 Studies on Igikuria Lexical Nominals...... 23

2.1.5 Sociolinguistic reasons for borrowing words from English ...... 25

2.2 Theoretical Framework ...... 26

2.2.1 The Borrowing Transfer Theory ...... 26

2.2.2 Wave Theory (WT) ...... 28

2.3 Summary ...... 29

CHAPTER THREE ...... 30

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 30

3.0 Introduction ...... 30

3.1 Research Design ...... 30

3.2 Area of Study ...... 31

3.3 Sample Size ...... 31

3.4 Respondents ...... 32

3.5 Data Collection Instruments ...... 34

3.6 Data Presentation and Analysis ...... 34

3.7 Ethical considerations ...... 36

3.8 Summary ...... 36

CHAPTER FOUR ...... 37

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ...... 37

4.0 Introduction ...... 37

4.1 Borrowed Cultural Lexical Nominals ...... 37

4.1.1 Borrowed Cultural lexical nominals per Semantic Field...... 39

4.1.2 Cultural Lexical Nominal Borrowing and Age ...... 47

4.1.3 Cultural Lexical Nominal Borrowing and Gender ...... 50

4.2 Borrowed Cultural Lexical Nominals and Igikuria morphology...... 52

4.2.1Emerging patterns in the Morphological Adaptations of nominals from

English into Igikuria ...... 63

4.3 Sociolinguistic reasons why Igikuria borrows nominals from English...... 65

4.3.1 Need to fill lexical Gaps ...... 69

4.3.2 Prestige ...... 70

4.3.3. Stylistic Reasons ...... 70

4.4 Summary ...... 71

xii

CHAPTER FIVE ...... 72

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 72

5.0 Introduction ...... 72

5.1 Findings ...... 72

5.2 Conclusions ...... 74

5.3 Recommendations ...... 74

5.5 Summary ...... 75

REFERENCES ...... 76

APPENDICES ...... 81

APPENDIX 1: ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 81

APPENDIX 2: ENGLISH INTERVIEW SCHEDULE...... 82

APPENDIX 3: REACTIONS TO LOAN WORDS UTILIZED IN IGIKURIA 84

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF BORROWED WORDS ...... 85

APPENDIX 5: KURIA EAST SUB COUNTY MAP ...... 96

APPENDIX 6. APPROVAL OF RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSAL ...... 97

APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH AUTHOURIZATION ...... 98

APPENDIX 8: RESEARCH PERMIT ...... 99

xiii

ABSTRACT

English language influences other languages thus enriching their vocabularies. Igikuria is no exception to this statement. The study identified some of the nominals that Igikuria has borrowed from English and analyzed them by age and gender of the respondents; it also examined how the nominals borrowed from English have been adapted into the morphological system of Igikuria and established some of the sociolinguistic reasons behind Igikuria borrowing nominals from English. The study was based on two theories: The Borrowing Transfer Theory as propounded by Terrence Odlin (1989), demonstrates that when languages come into contact, transfer or diffusion of elements from one language into another occurs. The Wave Theory by Lions (2002), demonstrates that linguistic changes tend to spread from the Centre, normally from economic, political or cultural influence to the area with no or little influence in those aspects. The study was carried out in Ntimaru west ward, Kuria East sub – county in Migori County in Kenya. Primary data was collected using: native speaker’s intuition, Semi-structured questionnaires and interview schedule. The data was based on ten semantic fields i.e. religion, science and technology, clothing, administration, transport, business, household items, education, medicine and food. This is because these domains represent those components of language that are dynamic. The respondents were purposefully sampled based on their levels of education. The collected data was transcribed and analyzed using the stated theories. A total of 186 nominals that Igikuria has borrowed from English were identified by the researcher and verified by respondents of an advanced age. Incidences of borrowing were examined by age and gender. Their morphological adaptations into the system of Igikuria were also examined and some of the sociolinguistic reasons for borrowing nominals from English into Igikuria were also established. The result was presented in tables and charts with their frequencies. Frequencies of occurrences of these borrowed nominals were compiled in regard to semantic fields, data source, gender and age of respondents. The results were presented in tables and figures. The findings of this study revealed that Igikuria has borrowed nominals in dissimilar semantic fields to fill the lexical gap in the language, prestige and for stylistic reasons. Borrowed nominals are incorporated into the Igikuria morphological system thus enriching vocabularies in Igikuria.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 General Introduction

This chapter forms background and general introduction to the study. The other sub- sections of this chapter outline the statement of the problem, research objectives, research questions, and research assumptions, significance of the study as well as the scope and limitations of the study.

1.1 Background to the study

Language contact takes place when speakers of two languages interact. Physical contact between speakers is not at all times essential for language contact to happen.

English is a modern lingua franca in Kenya, and it frequently influences lgikuria.

English influences other languages too through its use in science, business, education and diplomacy (Thomason, 2001) and Igikuria is no exception to this statement. Words are always borrowed first, then structure and grammar. Even those who are not fluent in an alien language can borrow a word from it, particularly if the borrowed word is simpler than its equivalent in the other language. The focus of this study was linguistic borrowing of lexical nominals due to the contact between two languages: Igikuria; an indigenous language and English; a national and official language for instance in Kenya.

Igikuria is a western Bantu language spoken in Kuria East and West,Migori County in

Kenya and Tarime, Musoma, Bunda and Serengeti Districts of the Mara Region in

Northern Tanzania.Igikuria belongs to the Bantu sub-family of the Niger-Congo phylum of languages. In 2006, the Abakuria population was approximated to be

609,000, with 435,000 living in Tanzania and 174,000 in Kenya. The 2009 census estimated the Abakuria in Kenya to be 204,000 (Kenya National Bureau of

Statistics, KNBS). These people are mostly farmers and pastoralists, mainly those in Kenya leans towards farming and the ones in Tanzania leans towards pastoralism.

According to Chacha (2008), the Abakuria people are clearly categorized into about

15 "sub tribes" or clans, namely: Abanyabasi, Abakiira, Abairege, Abaguumbe (who live in both Kenyan and Tanzanian Districts), Abatimbaru, Abanyamongo,

Abakenye, Ababwaasi, Abamerani, Abanchaari, Abasweeta, Abasembete,

Abahunyaga, and Abakeroba. Although all these clans speak one mutually intelligible language However, some important differences in their discourse is noticeable among them. These differences are mainly at the lexical and phonological levels (Muniko et al., 1996). The first four clans live in Kenya and Tanzania namely

Abanyabasi, Abakiira, Abairege and Abagumbe and the rest are found only in

Tanzania. Guthrie (1967) categorized Igikuria as E43, for instance, the third language in zone E, group 40. In this categorization, Abakuria are closely associated to Logooli (E41), Gusii (E42), Zanaki (E44), Nata (E45), Ngurimi and Simbiti.

Nurse &Philippson (1980) demonstrate that Igikuria is in the lacustrine group of languages, in the subgroup of East Nyanza, where it is shown to be closely

connected to Ngurimi, Suba, Ikizu, Shasi, Zanaki, and Nata. The Abakuria neighbors the Luo and Maasai on the Kenyan side, who are non-Bantu. The history of the Abakuria is closely tied with that of the various communities who surround them and it remains to be seen how much those neighbors have affected them linguistically (Rose, 2001; Mwita, 2008). The current study was based on Abairege clan because this the one I speak and any reference to Igikuria was referring to

Lexical borrowing is a typical occurrence in languages. Individual words can be borrowed from any language, even if the learner’s understanding of the originating language is limited (Ringbom, 1983). In addition, ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Maghribī (1956) maintained that languages enrich and develop themselves by borrowing from other languages. This illustrates the importance of borrowing for all languages and the role it plays in developing them. Furthermore, El-Khafaifi (1985) comments that, borrowing of an existing word from another language is easier than extending and modifying the use of existing lexical words to fulfill new communicative needs. In other words, it is easier to use the mechanism of ‘lexical borrowing’ to satisfy the needs of the language than to use the mechanism of ‘semantic extension’. It is the integration of alien characteristics into indigenous languages by speakers of that language: the indigenous language is retained but it is altered by the accumulation of the integrated characteristics (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988) in Myers-Scotton

(2002)). In a borrowing situation, the first alien items to get in to an indigenous language are words since it is the lexicon that reflects the culture of a people. Words

assimilated in this manner are called borrowings or loanwords. Of these, nouns are the most borrowed category (Myers-Scotton, 2002).

Closely related to and often confused with borrowing is code switching and the dividing line between the two is very thin. Young (2008) defines code switching as a linguistic expression indicating simultaneous use of many language varieties in a discourse. However, not all speakers who employ loanwords can be categorized as bilingual as is the case with code switching. In addition, a borrowed form has status in the recipient language. The same cannot be said for code switched forms; they have no predictive value. A borrowed form is usually extensively employed by a group of people and eventually attains a certain rank of approval. (Myers-Scotton,

2002; Pop lack, 1988). Code switching however was beyond the scope of this study.

El-Khafaifi (1985), points out that any language can be a borrowing language and also a donor language to several other languages. He also notes that there is no language entirely free of lexical borrowing; the only difference is that languages vary drastically in the number of lexical units which they borrow. Moreover, languages vary in their acceptance of lexical borrowing as an effective word formation mechanism. Some languages rely more on borrowing than others, which might depend on their flexibility at accepting new words from other languages. A less developed civilization in certain areas of life is likely to resort to lexical

borrowing to satisfy its need for new vocabulary, which can be considered a reason for the differences in the volumes of loanwords between languages.

Myers-Scotton (1993) classifies borrowing into two categories. These include: cultural borrowing. This refers to items that are fresh to the recipient language for example in Igikuria ‘esati’, shirt' in English). Core borrowing on the other hand refers to concepts that the recipient language previously had correspondent elements. For instance, in Igikuria 'Omusiki' (music), its correspondent in the same language is (omobhari). Core borrowing was beyond the scope of this study.

English first came to Kenya through European explorers, Christian missionaries, traders and the British colonialist (Owino, 2003). During the colonial period (1920-

1963) the language was taught to native Kenyans by native English teachers in schools (Muthwii, 1994). Later, The Ominde Report of 1964 recommended that children receive their education in their mother tongue during their initial years of learning that is, classes 1-3 (Igikuria was one such language) from class four onwards, a switch over to English would take place (Mbaabu, 1996). In Kenya just like in India, Singapore, Jamaica and Hong Kong, English has been assigned a special role. It is the official language of the country, thus used as a means of communication in fields such as administration, court of law, the media, and learning institutions, Furaha (2007). Provision is made for this in the current Kenya

2010 constitution. Proficiency in English is a requirement for white-collar-jobs and

is associated with the educated, economically powerful and the influential. English in Kenya is therefore prestigious and occupies a culturally and socio-economically dominant position. Its influence after independence remains. It is elevated and given a higher status than other languages. As such, it enjoys a certain amount of prestige.

This kind of prestige makes it ‘donor’ for many less prestigious languages like

Igikuria among others. Lexical borrowing normally begins from a higher to a lower influential culture (Hock, 1986).

Most of the inflectional morphology of Bantu languages is encoded in nouns and verbs. Igikuria, like most Bantu languages, assigns every noun to a class in a gender system where each class is identified by a unique prefix structure or morpheme

(Mutonyi, 2000; Nurse &Philippson, 2003). For example, class 1 nouns are identified by the prefix structure (o-mo), as in omosacha (man). The prefix structure not only marks the affiliation of a noun but also indicates number; that is, it says that there is either a single or multiple occurrence of the referent (Muandike, 2011).

A noun borrowed into Igikuria therefore would be morphologically assimilated into one of the twenty noun classes, for example 'omuislamu' (a muslim- class 1). It would also obtain suitable pronominal and locative markers and follow the Igikuria system of agreement where the noun or pronoun governs the agreement of the words associated with it in a syntactical relationship. As such, a word associated with the noun or pronoun generally tends to have the same prefix as they do. The modification of borrowed words from English into the Igikuria lexical system is,

according to Cichrová (2005), signified by attached derivational prefixes and suffixes. These diverse prefixes and suffixes could alter the first meaning of the borrowed words. Fresh concepts need appropriate terminologies and the simplest method to this is the taking up of the new terms into the borrowing language. There have been efforts to integrate the borrowed words into the borrowing language, but generally, without success. It is worth noting that although we decode the new term, it will by no means bear the very similar meaning (Cichrová, 2005; Svobodová,

1998).

Winford (2003) divides the motivations of lexical borrowing into two main categories: need and prestige. The need to borrow words occurs in a situation where a group of people are exposed to original domains of cultural information, where their personal language does not have appropriate words to illustrate it. The prestige of a source language largely contributes to the borrowing of lexical items from it.

Many young speakers of Igikuria prefer to use English loanwords in their daily speech as it can give them a high status among their peers (field 2002). Convenience plays an important role regarding integrating new vocabularies. In some cases, it may be easier for speakers of a given language, to borrow a foreign word than to create a new one in their language (Field 2002). Semantic equivalence, that is, how the borrowed word fits in the borrowing language semantically. Preferably, the borrowed word ought to refer to a similar entity in the borrowing language, as it does in the foreign language (Field 2002).

Lexical borrowing is a complex process as it relies on several micro- and macro level factors. Such factors when combined show the degree of borrowing in a speech community. The present study did not take into account of all the different factors that come into play concerning reasons for cultural lexical borrowing of nominals from English into the target language. It instead was based on only three factors, namely: need of speakers (filling lexical gaps); stylistic reasons; and lastly prestige.

This was to ensure that a detailed analysis and sufficient data can be given regarding lexical loanwords.

Several studies have been done on Igikuria. However, none of these studies to the best of the researcher’s knowledge has focused on lexical borrowing of nominals from English, a gap that this study anticipates to fill.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Cases of Borrowing are inevitable when different languages come into contact. This is not only one of the ways in which languages grow but also a way through which languages die. Several studies have been done on lexical borrowing in other Bantu languages. However, there is hardly much documentation that specifically focused on the Igikuria lexical borrowing of nominals from English, The morphological adaptations of the borrowed nominals into the system of the recipient language

(Igikuria) and the reasons for lexical borrowing of nominals from English into

Igikuria. To fill this gap, this study therefore sought to identify nominals that

Igikuria has borrowed from English for instance omokondakta ‘conductor’ and

Erechesta ‘register’. In addition, the study examined how these borrowings are morphologically adapted into the systems of Igikuria, for example omokondakta, o(Augument)– mo(Class prefix) –Kondakta (root)’conductor’. Finally, the study seeks to establish some of the sociolinguistic reasons why Igikuria has borrowed lexical nominals from English.

1.3Research Objectives

The objectives of the study were:

1. To identify lexical nominals that Igikuria has borrowed from

English.

2. To examine morphological adaptation of the lexical nominals

borrowed from English into Igikuria.

3. To establish some of the sociolinguistic reasons why Igikuria has

borrowed lexical nominals from English.

1.4 Research questions

This study sought to answer the following questions:

1. What are the nominals that Igikuria has borrowed from English?

2. How have the nominals borrowed from English been adapted into

the morphological systems of the Igikuria?

3. What are some of the sociolinguistic reasons behind Igikuria

borrowing nominals from English?

1.5 Research Assumptions

1. Igikuria has borrowed nominals from English.

2. Borrowed nominals of Igikuria from English are morphologically

adapted into the systems of Igikuria language.

3. There are some sociolinguistic reasons that account for lexical

borrowing of nominals from English into Igikuria

1.6 Justification and significance of the Study.

Language is crucial instrument in human interaction and an important reflection of social growth as it experiences swift modifications during histories (Sheng, 2009).

Languages, similar to cultures, are seldom adequate unto themselves (Sapir, 2001).

These necessitate an intercourse that brings speakers of one language into direct or indirect contact with those of adjacent or culturally prestigious languages (Sapir,

2001). Regular interaction between diverse communities leads to utilization of one another’s lexis (borrowing) in reference to specific items, methods, or thoughts. This manner of utilizing other people’s languages exerts a deep impact on language development and joint understanding of societies.

Igikuria, just like other languages has borrowed words from dominant languages like English and Kiswahili. When words are borrowed into a language, they are

incorporated into the phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic system of the borrowing language. As this happens, the language is expected to remain effective in communication Muandike (2013). This study examined lexical borrowing from English into Igikuria and how they are morphologically adapted into the language. It is hoped that it has provided an insight into the internal morphological pattern of Igikuria particularly of the borrowed nomials.

Additionally, it is hoped that the findings of this study will enrich the current record on linguistics and provide a foundation for other studies on Igikuria.

Studies have been done on lexical borrowing and specifically its harmful consequences such as shift and death of the recipient languages. Following Kisembe

(2003) who examines the negative effects of English on Luhya languages, this study sought to examine the opposite: that though core borrowing has a harmful effect on the borrowing languages, cultural borrowing is positive. It enriches and strengthens a language. This is because it improves the speaker's capability to articulate fresh ideas, occurrences and objects that are unfamiliar to their culture, for which they do not have local words. This study thus appends to the existing knowledge on the topic of lexical borrowing.

1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study focused on lexical borrowing. This is because words are the first foreign basics to get into the native language (Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 37). The study

was based on nouns. Myers-Scotton (2002) claims that, the reason behind nouns being frequently borrowed than other word classes was, because they receive rather than assign thematic roles.

It also examined how some of these borrowed nominals are morphologically adapted into Igikuria language. Adaptation of loanwords into the native language may be phonological, morphological and syntactical (Bynon, 1977 Fasold& Linton,

2006). This study investigated the borrowed forms from English only since as Hock

(1986) observes, lexical borrowing typically begins from a higher to a lower influential culture. Influential in that, this language assumes a higher social and economic mobility than others. It is also worth noting that though, Kiswahili is less dominant and has less prestige as compared to English which is culturally and socio- economically more dominant than it is, has an effect to this kind of borrowing since there are few of the morphological adaptations of the borrowed forms into Igikuria that are via Kiswahili and Kiswahili has some prestige by virtue of being a national language in Kenya. However, this study focused on borrowed forms from English since English is likely to provide sufficient data for analysis.

Borrowing in Igikuria and other languages can be found in various aspects of human existence (Muandike 2013, Kisembe 2003, Wamalwa 1997 and Poplack et al 1988).

The focus of this study was borrowed vocabularies derived from ten key semantic areas. These were: religion, science and technology, clothing, administration, transport, business, household items, education, medicine and food. Since most of

these aspects emerged during colonial times, there is a high likelihood of them being of English origin.

1.8 Summary

The focus of this chapter has focused on the background to the current study, statement of the problem, research questions, assumptions, justification and significance of the study and finally the scope and limitation. The next chapter focuses on literature review and theoretical framework.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

2.0 Introduction to literature review

The focal point of this chapter is literature review on lexical borrowing, studies related to lexical borrowing, the morphological adaptation of loanwords and sociolinguistic reasons for lexical borrowing. It also highlights the theoretical framework for the study.

2.1.1 Linguistic Borrowing

Borrowing is the importation of linguistic elements from one linguistic system into another, a process that emerges any time two cultures are in touch with each other, for duration of time (Hoffer, 2002). Regular contact between diverse communities leads to utilization of one another’s lexis (borrowing) in reference to specific objects, methods, or thoughts. This puts forth a deep impact on both language development and joint understanding of societies (Sheng, 2009).

Hope (1971) as cited by Hafiz (2015) indicates that ‘linguistic borrowing’ is a contradictory process as it involves, on the one hand, understanding and breaking down the material in contact, and on the other hand, reconstructing it in compliance with the formal features of the recipient language. Hafiz (2015) further points out that any language can be a borrowing language and also a donor language to several

other languages. It is possible that there is no language entirely free of lexical borrowing; the only difference is that languages vary drastically in the number of lexical units which they borrow. His study was relevant to the current study as it examined how English is a donor language to Igikuria.

Redouane (2001) defines lexical borrowing as the integration of new terms into a language. This process of borrowing can be termed as ‘adoption’, as speakers adopt elements from another language into their own. The language from which the property is obtained is known as the ‘source (or donor) language’, while the acquiring language is known as the ‘recipient (or borrowing) language. ’The above definition was relevant to the current study since it investigated how Igikuria speakers adopted elements from English into Igikuria.

Deroy (1956) observes that lexical borrowings are commonly aggravated by practical wants or by prestigious causes. Lexical elements might be borrowed to fill up a lexical breach, i.e. to communicate an idea which does not exist in the recipient language, or linguistic elements could be borrowed because of the status they carry although a correspondent element exists in the recipient language. His study was relevant to the current study as the study examined those lexical elements which are borrowed to fill a lexical gap and prestigious causes.

Myers-Scotton (1993) categorizes two forms of borrowing: Cultural borrowing; this refers to items fresh to the recipient language. This means that, cultural borrowings can fill a lexical gap in the recipient language. They therefore enhance the speaker’s ability to express new concepts, objects and experiences for which they lack native words. On the other hand, core borrowings are concepts that the recipient language previously has correspondent elements. Myers-Scotton further points out that, loanwords typically emerge in a language when famous people start utilizing them.

They could emerge often in two consequences, in the monolingual speech (speaking the recipient language) or in the code switching of bilinguals. His work was relevant to this study as the current study is based on cultural borrowing. In view of Meyers-

Scotton (1993), core borrowing was beyond the scope of this study.

Thomason and Kaufman (1988) and Meyers-Scotton (2002) describe borrowing as the integration of alien characteristics into a people’s indigenous language by speakers of the language: the indigenous language is retained but is altered by the accumulation of the integrated features; in a borrowing situation the initial alien basics to get into the recipient language are words. Usually, although not at all times, the loanwords are regarded as sterns in the recipient language-for example, they obtain the normal affixes for suitable stem- category. As Health (1985) observes,

“these stems could be words, as well as affixes, in the donor language. “If there is powerful cultural influence from the donor language,” then morphological features could be borrowed as well- phonological, phonetic and syntactic elements. Lexical

borrowing usually happens without extensive bilingualism and structural borrowing, as it has frequently been observed, actually it entails widespread bilingualism amid borrowing- language speakers over a substantial period. It was interesting to compare these findings with those of the current study.

Thomason and Kaufman (1988) gives further details about this idea by stressing on two characteristics about borrowing which includes: those who borrow features but retain their first language and the level of borrowing and, specifically, the form of loanwords depend on the extent of cultural contact. The current study sought to investigate if this is applicable to the borrowings into the Igikuria from English.

2.1.2 Studies on Borrowing in Other Bantu Languages

Studies have also been done on borrowing in the other Bantu languages. For instance, Ochwaya (1992) examines the power of English on the phonological features of Lunyala. She focused at differences and similarities that exist between the language of those Banyala who have never received formal education and those who have had formal education at school where they have been exposed to the

English language. Her study will be relevant to this study as it is based on the

Borrowing Transfer Theory as propounded by Terrence Odlin (1989) which this study adopted.

Kisembe (2003) investigated the linguistic consequences of English on Luhya languages of western Kenya. The study revealed that borrowing, code-switching,

code-mixing and language shift lead to language death in some cases. In this study,

Kisembe (2003) argues that English is detrimental to the growth of native languages in ways such as considerable decrease in stylistic terminologies in native languages, abridged lexicon with many interferences, modification in native language phonology, reduction in competence of native languages, and loss of linguistic and cultural identity. While her work examines borrowing in general (core and cultural) her findings were restricted to the negative effects of borrowing on the borrowing languages. Worth noting also is that her focus is on the phonological adaptation of the borrowed words. This study looked at borrowing by focusing on one type of borrowing only namely cultural borrowing. Unlike her study, the current study also examined the morphological assimilation of loanwords into the morphological system of Igikuria. Besides, it examined the positive effects of lexical borrowing on the recipient language and accounts for some of the sociolinguistic reasons why

Igikuria borrowed words from English.

Wamalwa (1997) investigates the sociolinguistic principles that govern Kiswahili lexical integration into Lubukusu. She points out the necessity to disambiguate two closely connected thoughts ensuing from borrowing, the necessity to communicate with linguistic economy and effortlessness, the necessity to depict a powerful social status and the necessity to communicate a fresh idea as the main stimulating principles for KiswahiIi-Lubukusu borrowing. This study made use of the two principles: the need to communicate a fresh idea and the need to portray a

prestigious social status. It was interesting to compare his findings with those of the current study.

Muandike (2011) studied linguistic borrowing and language vitality in Lubukusu.

In her study, 157 cultural lexical borrowed nominals were identified and classified into nine semantic fields. The study revealed that Lubukusu has borrowed cultural lexical nominals from different semantic fields which have been assimilated into the

Lubukusu morphological system hence increasing its expressive power. While her work examined cultural borrowing, her findings were restricted to the morphological adaptation of the borrowed words and language vitality in Lubukusu.

The current study established some of the sociolinguistic motivations of borrowing lexical nominals from English into Igikuria. Her work was important to the current study since it was based on borrowing transfer theory which the study adopted.

2.1.3 Morphological Adaptation of Borrowed Words

According to Hudson (1980), it is ordinary for loanwords to be incorporated to some extent to elements existing in the recipient language. Borrowed words can undergo modification to fit into the grammatical, morphological, phonological and/or syntactic systems of the borrowing languages and this need not be total. It was therefore interesting comparing his findings with the current study

Fasold& Linton (2006) asserts that always loanwords are modified to fit on native linguistic regulations, a procedure called adaptation. New sounds arising from borrowed elements are substituted by their closest phonetic correspondents in the recipient variety, a perspective Kisembe (2003) concurs with in her work. She examines how loanwords from English are phonologically modified to fit to the phonotactic limitations of Luhya languages. She says that when articulating a new word, the pronunciation of the native language is used and two things are expected to emerge: every segment in the new word is deduced according to the recipient segment systems and that no string emerges that infringe the syllable structure limitations. In view of Kisembe's study, phonological adaptation was beyond the scope of the current study.

Smeaton (1973) observes that a borrowed word goes through adjustments of morphological structure to attain agreement with the current dominant pattern and root system of the recipient language. The current study sought to find out if this was the case with the lexical nominals borrowed into Igikuria from English. In specific instances, in morphological adaptation, loanwords should be assimilated to the morphological classes of the borrowing language. The borrowing of nouns into languages with a gender or noun-class system is an instance in which the borrowing procedure entails a reconfiguration of the loanwords into fresh classes

Barkin (1980) investigates the gender assignment of borrowed nouns from English into Spanish. He found that the adaptation of loanwords needs gender assignment.

In Swahili, loanwords from German were examined by Pasch and Strauch (1998) in

Hafez (1996). They find out animacy to be a main attribute in category allocation.

Going by these findings, this study established whether and how the borrowed words from English fit into the assigned noun clauses in Igikuria.

Myers-Scotton (1993:191) observes that borrowed lexical forms show different patterns of morphological integration: (a) not all forms show complete morphological integration (b) when there is incomplete morphological integration, it may characterize borrowed forms in contrast to indigenous forms and (c) borrowed forms show syntactic integration. She further supports this view in Myers-

Scotton (2002:42) that majority of the loanwords are completely - or almost completely- morph syntactically incorporated into the borrowing language. She however comments that there are exceptions. For example, some borrowed forms retain some system morphemes from the donor language for example' alchemy' is a borrowing originally from Arabic 'al kimiya' with 'al' as a definite article. This study sought to examine the different patterns of morphological integration of English borrowings into Igikuria. She also observes that some borrowed forms may not retain their original set of inflections, but they fail to conform to all the morphological requirements of the recipient language, for example, Arabic adjectives as borrowed forms in Swahili that do not receive the agreement prefixes that indigenous Bantu adjectives receive. They however follow Swahili word order.

She concludes that borrowed lexical elements must leave behind their levels of predicate-argument structure and morphological realization patterns unless they match those of the recipient language. This study formed a basis for comparison with the current study.

Poplack et al (1988) observe that in order for the loanword to be fully assimilated into the borrowing language, it should be adapted into the present patterns of that language. They give the example of English words borrowed into French. They should be allocated a grammatical category. For example, nouns and suitable adjectives should be allocated a gender and if plural, inflected for number. Verbs should be inflected for mood, tense and person. It was interesting comparing the findings of this study with those of the current study.

Mosha in Whiteley (1971) classifies various sociolinguistic reasons why Kiganda borrows from English and Swahili. He categorizes these as the lack of native expressions for foreign elements and thoughts which have been integrated into

Kiganda from different cultures, the influence of the donor language, the necessity to distinguish semantic domains, the need by the administration and other institutions to shun adverse designations and implications and the pursuit for acknowledgment and approval. He shows how words are phonologically and morphologically integrated into Kiganda. He observes that phonetic, phonological,

and morphological Lugandanization typically forces loan words into the Luganda patterns. It was interesting comparing these findings with those of the current study.

Zawawi (1974) examines borrowed words from Arabic into Kiswahili and their impact on the categorization of Swahili nominals. He looks at how these are morphologically assimilated into the Swahili language. His study presents a descriptive analysis of the classification of nominals in Swahili and discusses the variations that have occurred in their system of concordial agreement. The non-

Bantu words which appear in the language are modified to fit into the Swahili system of concordial agreement. Therefore, in addition to experiencing some phonological modifications, these words attain Bantu nominal prefixes, acquire suitable pronominal and locative markers and follow the Bantu system of

Concordial agreement. Notably however, he does not examine sociolinguistic reasons for borrowing nominals from Arabic to the recipient language, an aspect that the current study does.

2.1.4 Studies on Igikuria Lexical Nominals.

Nouns in Kuria, just like other Bantu languages, are divided into classes. The nouns are made up of three parts: the pre-prefix or augment, the class prefix, and the root.

The augment is always a copy of the vowel in the class prefix Cammenga (2004)

/O-mo- gaka‘man’

Augment class prefix root

This study was relevant to the current study as the researcher repeatedly made reference to this table when analyzing morphological adaptation of lexical nominal from English into the system of Igikuria. Kuria noun classes with their examples are found in Table 1. In this system, each noun class was referred to by number.

Table 1: Noun classes

Class Preprefix Class Example Gloss Number (Augment) prefix 1 o - - mo - omokáɾi “woman” 2 a - - βa - aβakáɾi “women” 3 o - - mo - Omoté “tree” 4 e - - me - Emeté “trees” 5 i - - ɾi - iɾiiγí “egg” 6 a - - ma - Amaγí “eggs” 7 e - - ke - Eγeénto “thing” 8 i - - βi - iβiínto “things” 9 e - Ø Eβatá “duck” 9a e- Ø Eembéγo “seed” 10 i - - tʃi - iʧiβátá “ducks” 10a i - - tʃi - iʧiimbéγo “seeds” 11 o - - ɾo - oɾᵓoβáγᴐ “hedge” 12 a - - ka - aγaʧúβa “small bottle” 14 o - - βo - oβokáánᴐ “sesame seed” 15 o - - ko - oγosᴐma “to read” 16 a - - ha - Ahasé “a place” 17 Ø ko - γuusúkúúɾi “in/at school” 18 Ø mo - Moónse “inside” 19 i - - hi - ihiβéγo “small seeds” 20 u - - γu - uγuʧúβa “big bottle”

Cammenga (2004)

2.1.5 Sociolinguistic reasons for borrowing words from English

Winford (2003) divides the motivations of lexical borrowing into two main categories: need and prestige. The need to borrow words occurs in a situation where

Igikuria speakers are exposed to original domains of cultural information, where

Igikuria does not have appropriate words to illustrate it. The prestige of a language largely contributes to the borrowing of lexical items from it. Many young speakers of Igikuria prefer to use English loanwords in their daily speech as it can give them a high status among their peers (field 2002). Convenience plays an important role regarding integrating new vocabularies. In some cases, it may be easier for speakers of a given language, to borrow a foreign word than to create a new one in their language (Field 2002). Semantic equivalence refers to how the borrowed word fits in the borrowing language semantically. Preferably, the borrowed word ought to refer to similar entities in the borrowing language, as it does in the foreign language

(Field 2002).

Lexical borrowing is a complex process, which relies on several micro- and macro level factors, and these factors combined show the degree of borrowing in a speech community. The present study did not take into account all the different factors that come into play concerning reasons for cultural lexical borrowing of nominals from

English into the target language. The current study was based on three factors; these include: need (filling lexical gaps), stylistic reasons and prestige, to ensure a detailed analysis and sufficient data.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

This study was guided by two theories of borrowing i.e. the borrowing transfer theory by Terence Odlin (1989) and the wave theory Lyons (2002).

2.2.1 The Borrowing Transfer Theory

Odlin (1989) has suggested an operational definition of transfer: Transfer is the influence ensuing from correspondences and diversities between the target language and any other language that has been formerly acquired.

According to this, it has been proposed that language transfer is related to diverse contexts, thus relating to diverse inter language varieties. In addition, It has also been observed that indigenous transfer is less likely in focused contexts, where there is need to retain the standardness of languages, than in unfocused contexts. For instance, he proposes that negative transfer is more likely to happen off class than on class.

In this model, Odlin (1989) demonstrates that as languages come into contact, transfer or diffusion of materials from one language to another occurs. Therefore, as

Igikuria comes into contact with English, transfer of materials from English into

Igikuria takes place. Such distribution of linguistic characteristics from one group to another assumes contact by ways of the verbal or written expressions, specifically, by hearing or seeing; thus, interaction is an obligatory requirement for

the distribution of linguistic characteristics. Interaction does not determine the direction of the ‘flow' that emanates from the socio-cultural aspects and socio- culturally accustomed feelings of the speakers.

Odlin (1989) regards transfer as the influence ensuing from correspondences and diversities between the second language and any language which has formerly been acquired. In addition, he observes that this transfer begins from a high-status to a lower status language. English is a high status language as compared to Igikuria which is a low status language. Odlin (1989) observation explains why Igikuria borrows from English which no matter its degree; distribution from superior to inferior social ranks is the regulation. The status and effectiveness of the 'superior' language or dialect are the influential aspects. Such a trend of flow could be changed merely by a social revolt.

Odlin (1989) distinguishes between two forms of transfer: borrowing transfer and substratum transfer. Borrowing transfer is the influence a second language has on already obtained language while substratum transfer is the influence of a native language on the attainment of a second language, in spite of how many languages the speaker knows. Borrowing transfer thus entails the method where alien linguistic items are modified to the indigenous system. The current study will make use of the borrowing transfer which is the influence of the second language (English) on the

already obtained language (Igikuria). Substratum transfer was beyond the scope of this study.

Language contact constantly assumes certain level of cultural interaction.

Odlin(1989) notes that borrowing transfer usually start at the lexical level, due to the power of one language on another. This model aided to clarify the borrowing of

English lexical nominals into Igikuria.

2.2.2 Wave Theory (WT)

The Wave Theory by Lyons (2002), also known as Wave Model, is therefore a model of language change in which features of a language stretch incessantly like waves when an object is thrown in a body of water. WT maintains that linguistic changes tend to stretch from the center, usually with economic, political or cultural influence to the area with no or little influence in those aspects. In other words, when two languages are in contact, the resultant changes will be initiated from the language with more influence, spreading like waves to the language of low or no influence. According to this model, this may result into the convergence of dissimilar languages.

This theory was useful in this study because it tackled the Centre of influence between languages in contact. The tenets of this theory were in line with the influence of English on Igikuria as far as lexical borrowing is concerned. This study

ascertained that English as the economically, politically and socially powerful language has spread its influence to the less powerful language (Igikuria) for example; the changes which were identified in this study (morphological modifications) are revealed to spread from English into Igikuria. Thus, the theory captures the whole idea of influence from English into Igikuria.

This study thus uses Borrowing Transfer theory as it aids to explain how loaned lexical items are morphologically incorporated into the Igikuria lexicon. Similarly, the study employs Wave Theory as it helps to unearth practical proof on uneven association held between English and Igikuria which has facilitated changes in the

Igikuria lexicon. Specifically, both theories match each other

2.3 Summary

In this chapter, the center of attention has been on literature review allied to the topics of linguistic borrowing, the morphological adaptations of borrowed nominals and sociolinguistic motivations for lexical borrowing. The theories guiding this study have also been discussed. The next chapter is a discourse of the research methodology espoused for this study.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

In order to meet the objectives of this study, this chapter outlines the research design, area of study, sampling technique, sample size, respondents, data collection techniques and data analysis and presentation procedures.

3.1 Research Design

The study utilized both qualitative and quantitative research designs. Qualitative research design aided this study in the identification and classification of the borrowed lexical nominals in Igikuria from English, description of their morphological adaptations and the establishment of some of the sociolinguistic reasons why such borrowings have occurred. The quantitative research design on the other hand was adopted to aid this study in determining the frequency of use of the borrowed forms in particular semantic fields namely: education, transport, science &technology, business, medicine, administration, clothing, religion household items and food. Frequency tables and percentages were used to present the distribution of the borrowed nominals into Igikuria from English. The current study utilized primary data alone.

3.2 Area of Study

The study area was Migori County where the Abakuria ethnic group in Kenya is located. The study was carried out specifically in Ntimaru West ward in Kuria East

Sub – county see the map in appendix 5. Ntimaru is about fifty-six (56) kilometers from Migori town which is the head quarter of the county. This area was ideal for the study because of its proximity to Ntimaru town. This means its inhabitants majority of whom are Abakuria, have access to activities in and around the town such as variety purchases, access to science and technology services and travels using various means of transport in their day to day’s activities. There would be a high tendency of using terminologies in science and technologies and other semantic fields identified earlier. In spite of proximity urban center, the villages in this area, still exhibit high degrees of rural life. This area was familiar to the researcher, having been brought up and partly educated there. This area too enabled the researcher to select her sample and create rapport with the respondents.

3.3 Sample Size

A total of 186 borrowed lexical nominals from ten semantic fields identified earlier in chapter one, were extracted through native speaker’s intuition and formal interviews and questionnaires. Labov (1966) in Milroy (1987) argues that a linguistic trait does not require a massive number of subjects for it to be noticed or traced. He says that variations can emerge even from samples as small as twenty- five speakers. Other linguists like Trudgil (1974) and Stubb (1983) are in agreement

with this and also lay emphasis on the need for adequate rather than enormous data, and a detail analysis of the data obtained.

In addition, a sample of lexical nominals drawn from fifty respondents was deemed sufficient to enable an exhaustive study of lexical borrowed nominals in Igikuria. It was reasoning from this study that the samples from these respondents would reflect in general the linguistic pattern of borrowing lexical nominals, morphological adaptations of borrowed lexical nominals from English to Igikuria and sociolinguistic motivations of borrowing lexical nominals from English into

Igikuria.

In addition to the fifty respondents, two more respondents aged 65 and 70 respectively and native speakers of Igikuria were identified to verify that the identified nominals from the ten semantic fields were indeed cultural borrowings and that no native equivalents exist in the Igikuria lexicon. This choice of these respondents was based on the view that speakers of this age are considered the custodians of a language's purity and would know which words are borrowed.

3.4 Respondents

A total of fifty respondents were identified. Respondents were Igikuria-English bilingual speakers, who are native speakers of Igikuria. This is in accordance with

Christophersen's (1956) view in Ochwaya (1992) that someone speaking or writing

in his mother tongue is allowed to take liberties with the language, since after all, 'it is his own language'. But somebody who has acquired the same language as a second language will be felt by many to be wrong to do the same; it will be an improper liberty to take since' it is not his own language'.

The respondents were required to have acquired a minimum of secondary school level education such that they would be able to respond to the questionnaire. The native speakers of Igikuria who were fluent in other neighboring languages such as

Ekegusii, Tholuo etc, did not form part of this sample. This eliminated the prospect of respondents using lexical items borrowed from those other languages.

The respondents were also categorized by age that is, from eighteen and fifty and of this there was an equal representation of gender. Respondents aged 18 -35 were regarded as 'younger’ speakers and those aged 36-50 as 'older'. This is in view of the fact that in Abakuria culture, one can only be allowed to sit in the barazas

(assemblies exclusive to adult men) when one is 36 years. The fact of this see table

3 on page 51. Muandike (2011) used a similar approach while studying lexical borrowing from English by Lubukusu and Ndambuki (2013) on analysis of nativized loanwords in Kikamba. Among the respondents were teachers, shopkeepers, business people medical practitioners, house wives and students. This enabled the researcher to collect data drawn from various semantic fields identified earlier in chapter one.

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

Primary Data

The data for this study constituted Igikuria cultural lexical nominals borrowed from

English. This was collected through questionnaires (see Appendix 1) and native speaker’s intuition. The data contained various areas of language use and domains of daily life communication. The questionnaire required respondents to list down words that they regarded as borrowed words from English as used in the identified semantic fields of language use. A total number of 186Igikuria nominals were purposefully collected and analyzed qualitatively with an aim of revealing some of the nominals that Igikuria has borrowed from English and their morphological adaptations into the systems of Igikuria.

In addition to questionnaire, semi-structured interviews were also used to ascertain reasons for lexical borrowing from English into Igikuria. This enabled flexibility as the researcher, was able to probe or modify questions as need arose. The researcher ascertained reasons for borrowing nominals from English by interviewing fifty speakers (respondents) who fitted a specified category in terms of age and gender. Indeed, semi-structured interviews discovered a great level of the state of lexical borrowing and the influence of English on Igikuria in general.

3.6 Data Presentation and Analysis

Data collected was analyzed at three different levels: lexical borrowing of nominals from English into Igikuria, morphological adaptations of borrowed lexical nominals

into Igikuria, and sociolinguistic reasons why Igikuria has borrowed lexical nominals from English. Single nominals from English occurring naturally in

Igikuria context were extracted in accordance with the Borrowing Transfer Theory

(Odlin, 1989) and Wave theory (Lyons, 2002). Lexical borrowings were identified and verified by respondents of an advanced age (65 to 70years). The lexical items were classified into the ten key semantic areas. These are religion, science and technology, clothing, administration, transport, business, household items, education, medicine and food alongside their English equivalents. It is from this list of borrowed lexical nominals, that an analysis of the frequency of occurrence of the borrowed nominals against the identified variables was obtained. This information was presented using tables [see table 2, 3 and 4 in chapter four].

Morphological adaptation of some of the lexical borrowings were also be analyzed.

They were drawn from the semantic fields with the highest and lowest number of borrowings. These accounted for the morphological adaptation of the English nominal into the Igikuria language. See table 5, 6 and 7 in chapter four.

Some of the sociolinguistic reasons why Igikuria borrowed nominals from English were analyzed. They were also drawn from the semantic fields with the highest and the smallest of borrowings. The findings were then categorized, calculated in percentages, and discussed. Refer table 9 in chapter four.

3.7 Ethical considerations

Throughout the research process, the researcher observed research ethics. To start with, all citations in this study were duly acknowledged. Secondly, the researcher got a research permit and a letter from the National Council for Science and

Technology (NACOST) authorizing her to collect the required data from Ntimaru

Westward (Migori County). The respondents were properly informed about the researcher’s intentions and they gave their consent. Relevant information got from the field was used for the purpose of this study. The data was carefully handled and stored in a safe place.

3.8 Summary

This chapter discussed the research methodology. Our discussions in this chapter have focused on the research design, area of study, sample size, data collection tools data presentation and analysis and lastly ethical considerations. The next chapter seeks to analyze the data collected during field work to meet the objectives of the study.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Introduction

This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and discussion of data collected.

The chapter consists of four sections. The first one deals with the first objective which is data presentation after identification and classification of the borrowed nominals into ten semantic fields. It also gives an analysis of the borrowed nominals in regard to data source, age and gender. The second section deals with objective two which is an analysis of how the borrowed nominals are adapted into the Igikuria morphological system. The third section deals with objective three which is a discussion on the sociolinguistic reasons why igikuria has borrowed nominals from

English while the last section gives a summary of the content of this chapter.

4.1 Borrowed Cultural Lexical Nominals

Objective one, a total of 186 borrowed nominals were identified from two data sources namely questionnaires and researcher’s native speakers’ intuition. Those lexical items that had already been identified through Native speaker’s intuition were excluded from those that emerged from the questionnaires. This was done with an aim of reducing a possibility of there being a double entry of data.

The table below shows the frequency of occurrence of the nominals borrowings per semantic field. It gives an analysis of the borrowed nominals in regard to data sources. It is arranged from the semantic field with highest number of lexical nominal borrowing from English into the Igikuria to the semantic field with the least number of lexical nominal borrowings from English into Igikuria.

Table 2: Frequency of occurrence of borrowed nominals per semantic field in regard to data sources (For the actual list of borrowed nominals in each semantic field refer to appendix 4)

Semantic Lexical Total % of lexical field/Data Nominals Number Nominals source from of Lexical per semantic Semantic Native Nominals field field/Data source speaker's Education 25 8 33 17.7 Transport 20 10 30 16.1 Science & 16 4 20 10.8 Technology Religion 12 6 18 9.7 Administration 12 5 17 9.1 Business 12 3 15 8.1 Clothing 6 8 14 7.5 Household Items 8 6 14 7.5 Medicine 9 4 13 7.0 Food 7 5 12 6.5 TOTAL 127 59 186 100

4.1.1 Borrowed Cultural lexical nominals per Semantic Field.

Education

The following is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of education. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Obhlakabhoti blackboard

Ichaki chalk

Erechesta register

Etaimutebho time table

Irula ruler

There are numerous valid explanations as to why the semantic field of education would have more borrowings than the other semantic fields. To start with, education was among the first forms of contact between Igikuria and English and this has contact has lasted through the years to date. English has over the years been the language of instruction in education in Kenya, apart from mother tongue being adopted in the lower primary school level (Mbaabu 1996). It is worth noting that even this teaching in mother tongue, according to researches carried out, is more in policy than practice since it is downplayed in education (Muthwii 2002). Because of the constant contact between the two languages however, there has probably been more room for borrowing from English than coinage by Igikuria.

Education has had the highest influence on the contact between the two languages and thus the increased need for borrowing. In addition to education having the

highest percentage is that all the respondents interviewed have had access to formal education at least up to Form Four thus their proficiency in English. The reasonable thing to do if confronted with a circumstance where there is no native correspondent for an English idea, they wish to express in Igikuria is to borrow the word and make it sound Igikuria through adaptation.

Transport

Below is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of transport. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4.

Igikuria English Gloss

Iinchini Engine

Ekelachi Clutch

Omontelebha Driver

Obholeki Break

Isibhiti Speed

Respondents often use modern means of transport in their day to day activities.

Therefore, it is essential for them to name the items in this field of which such items have no equivalents in Igikuria thus the need to borrow. This is a possible reason why this field has the second highest number of borrowings.

Science and Technology

Below is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of science and technology. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4.

Igikuria English Gloss

Etiibhi Television

Ebhitio Video

Ekombhyuta Computer

Emausi Mouse

Ichaacha Charger

Science and Technology is third among the semantic fields with the highest number of borrowings. This is because in this domain, there are no Igikuria equivalents in use for many terminologies in English as technology is rapidly producing item, objects and ideas much faster than languages can name them and this explains the possible reason why this field has this percentage of borrowings.

Religion

Beneath is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of religion. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Omobhasita Pastor

Omukristo Christian

Esakaramenti Sacrament

Ibhulubiti Pulpit

Ibhibhulia Bible

Religion is fourth among the semantic fields the highest number of borrowing since it is among the first forms of and reasons for contact between Igikuria and English.

This was accomplished through European Christian missionaries in Kenya. This contact through the years has enabled Igikuria speakers borrow ideas and words from English which Igikuria did not have. This explains why religion has the fourth highest number of borrowings.

Administration

Beneath is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of administration. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Ehobhisi Office

Umuchibhu Chief

Iribhoti Report

Ebhomu Form

Esatibhiketi Certificate

The field of administration is fifth in position among the semantic fields because the respondents live in an area governed by local administration; terminologies in the field are frequently used by both the locals and administrators. It is also worth noting that in the past, Igikuria speakers had a different system of administration from the

European's (Were 1967); hence this percentage of borrowed nominals.

Business

Below is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of business. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Isitoku Stock

Ehotel Hotel

Erenti Rent

Esubhamaketi Supermarket

Irisiti Receipt

The semantic field of business is sixth in position among the semantic fields because the frequency with which the respondents transact business on a daily basis as consumers or otherwise has created the necessity to name concepts in this field.

Clothing

The following is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of clothing. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Isigeti Skirt

Obhlenketi Blanket

Esati Shirt

Elongi Long trouser

Ibhilokesi Pillow case

Household Items

Below is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of house hold items. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Esobhaseti Sofa set

Engilasi Glass

Ethamosi Thermos

Ibhurichi Fridge

Ebhani Pan

Clothing and household tie in position seven since items were in existence long before the initial contact between Igikuria and English speakers. Also, in these fields, there has been less cultural contact between speakers of the two languages.

There are Igikuria correspondents in use for many terminologies in English in these fields and this explains the least number of borrowings in this field.

Medicine

Below is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of medicine. For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Omonasi Nurse

Ithieta Theatre

Ebhamasi Pharmacy

Egisereyi X-ray

Obhareseni Operation

Medicine is in the ninth position among the semantic fields because unlike the other fields above where almost all the respondents have something to say, this field is limited to its specialists. Secondly the terminologies are very complicated; coinage tends to be easier than borrowing (Muandike, 2011). Finally, terminologies in these fields are less frequently used as compared to the other fields discussed above. This leads to the smallest number of borrowing.

Food

Below is a sample list of the nominals collected from the semantic field of food.

For the entire list refer to Appendix 4

Igikuria English Gloss

Ibhisuguti Biscuits

Egeki Cake

Ichichibhusi Chips

Ichuisi Juice

Eroiko Royco

Food is the last in position among the semantic fields with the least number of borrowings just like clothing and household items, there are Igikuria equivalents in use for many terminologies in English and this explains the possible reason why this field has the least number of borrowings.

Nominals borrowed per semantic field

18 16 14 12 10 8

6 % of occurance 4 2 0

Figure 4.1: Percentage of lexical nominals borrowed per semantic field

The field of education for example has the highest number of such borrowed items

(17.7%) and is followed by the semantic field of transport (16.1%) of the total borrowings. Following closely is science and technology and religion semantic fields from which the borrowed items account for (10.8%) and (9.7%) of the total borrowings respectively. The field of administration and business also follow one another closely with (9.1%) and (8.1) respectively while clothing and household item tie in the next position with each having 7.5% and 7.5%. Medicine is position nine with (7.0%) of the borrowings. Lastly, the semantic fields of food draw the least number of borrowings with (6.5%)

4.1.2 Cultural Lexical Nominal Borrowing and Age

The first objective dealt with identification and classification of borrowed lexical nominals from English into Igikuria by age and gender.

The following table portrays the frequency of occurrence of the cultural lexical borrowings in relation to the age of respondents per semantic field

Table3: Frequency of occurrence of cultural lexical nominals borrowed in relation to the age of respondents.

Borrowing Borrowing Total Total % SEMANTIC (Age 18-35) (Age 36-50) borrowing Education 11 22 33 21.4 Transport 14 12 26 16.9 Science &technology 16 4 20 13.0 Administration 3 13 16 10.4

Business 7 5 12 7.8 Religion 5 6 11 7.1 Clothing 2 8 10 6.5 Household items 0 10 10 6.5 Medicine 3 5 8 5.2 Food 1 7 8 5.2 Total 62 92 154 100

The table above shows that the older respondents (36-50) years borrowed more

(59.7%) than the younger ones (18-35) years (40.3%) in Igikuria. A possible explanation for this is due to the awakening interest in the use of Igikuria by the youths through FM radio stations like Radio Togotane and in several youth forums where youths are challenged to speak in Igikuria. It is important to note that this study examines borrowed nominals that have no native correspondents in Igikuria.

There are differences in the borrowing patterns between the two age clusters in various semantic fields (Table 2). Whereas the younger speakers borrow more in the semantic fields of science &technology, business and transport (80%, (58.3%) and

(53.8%), respectively) their older counterparts borrow least in the same: science & technology (20%), business (41.7%) and transport (46.2%). While the younger speakers borrow less in the semantic fields of household items (0%) and administration, (18.75%), the older ones borrow more in the very fields: household items (100%) and administration (81.25%).

A likely reason for this tendency is the age factor. For example, most technological growths are rather recent thus the younger speakers are more familiar with them for instance the internet such as computer, face book and twitter (Muandike, 2011). The high number of borrowings in the semantic fields of business and transport could be due to dexterity and aggressiveness of youth hence their spirit to do business more than the older speakers. This same spirit predisposes them towards the (public) transport business. Since the younger speakers are more involved in these semantic fields, they tend to borrow more than their older counterparts.

The reason behind older speakers borrowing more in the semantic fields of household items and administration, just like in the argument above, is the age factor. Most administrators, especially in a rural environment, would be older speakers because of their familiarity and the power that age dictates.

Although research carried out previously has found that younger speakers are more vulnerable to borrowing (Poplack, 1988) this study depicts that older speakers borrow more than younger speakers. The possible reason is due to the awakening interest in the use of Igikuria by the youths through FM radio stations like Radio

Togotane and in several youth forums where youths are challenged to speaking

Igikuria.

4.1.3 Cultural Lexical Nominal Borrowing and Gender

The following table portrays the frequency of occurrence of the cultural lexical borrowings in relation to the gender of respondents per semantic field.

Table 4: Frequency of occurrence of cultural lexical nominal borrowed in relation to the gender of respondents per semantic field.

Male Female Total Lexical Total % Semantic Borrowing Borrowing Science& Technology 19 1 20 15.4 Transport 16 3 19 14.6 Education 8 6 14 10.8 Administration 12 2 14 10.8 Clothing 2 11 13 10 Religion 4 9 13 10 Medicine 11 2 13 10 Household Items 0 11 11 8.5 Food 0 8 8 6.2 Business 3 2 5 3.8 Total 75 55 130 100

Actual number of total lexical items drawn from questionnaires 127: Percentages are worked out from this figure. The figure 130 is a result of some lexical items being drawn from respondents of both genders.

The table above indicates that out of the total (127) borrowed lexical items in this study, data drawn through questionnaires (68.3%) of the total number of the borrowed cultural lexical nominals identified in the study), (57.7%) are elicited from male respondents while 42.3% are from their female counterparts. Men are

more mobile in the Abakuria culture as they are the heads of the families hence have an obligation of providing for them whether they are employed or not.

Alternatively, women are pre-occupied with so many activities around their home for example cooking, nursing babies- grazing animals among many others. This offers them too little contact with other languages such as English thus less borrowing. These results are in line with linguistic patterns in studies investigated in different communities where it has been established that males borrow more than females. This is because women are more conservative and tend to be slow in adjusting to changes in progress (Labov, 1972; Trudgil, 1974, 1986; Romaine, 1984;

1978; Milroy and Milroy, 1978; Milroy 1980; Chambers 1995 and Kebeya 2008).

An additional surveillance of the similar table divulges the reversed borrowing patterns of the two genders in the various semantic fields. For instance, while male respondents borrow more in certain semantic fields such as transport (84.2%), science and technology (95%), medicine (84.6%), administration (85.7%), their female counterparts borrow more in the semantic fields Religion (69.2%), food

(100%), household items (100%) and clothing (84.6%). Whereas the male respondents borrow the least in the semantic fields of clothing (15.4%), food (0 %), religion (30.8 %) and household items (0%), the female ones borrow the least in the semantic fields of science and technology (5%), administration (14.3%), medicine (15.4%) and transport (15.8%).

The reason behind this is that the fields of transport, medicine, administration and science & technology in Kenya have been a male preserve. In addition, men are said to be more experienced with technological developments than women. For this reason, the male respondents tend to borrow more than their female counterparts.

Female respondents borrow more in the fields of religion, food, household items and clothing. This is due to the fact that women are assumed to be nurses and makers of their homes. They also ensure that their children get spiritual nourishment by taking them to church regularly for this reason the responsibility of family morals is charged with them. As a result of administering these obligations, they are exposed to new words in these fields. These vocabularies would often be heard in their speech. Therefore, this is a possible explanation why men borrow less in these fields.

4.2 Borrowed Cultural Lexical Nominals and Igikuria morphology.

This is the second objective of this study which examined the morphological adaptations of the borrowed nominals. The earlier section depicts consistencies in the frequencies of borrowings per semantic field in regard to the identified variables of gender and age. Education and transport are the highest in the number of borrowings always in the last two positions are the household items and food interchangeably. Even though all the borrowed nominals identified in the ten semantic fields go through some morphological adaptation so as to conform to the

Igikuria morphological system, for comparison purposes only three of them were

discussed. These are education, transport and household items. Education and transport had the highest number of lexical borrowing in the semantic fields where as food and household items tied in the last position with the least number of lexical borrowing.

Education

This is the semantic field with the highest number of borrowings: In the classification of gender and age, it still emerged the highest (cf. Tables 2 and3 in sub sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4).

Table 5: Examples of borrowed lexical nominals from English into Igikuria in field of education

Igikuria English Gloss

Singular Plural Singular Plural

Erechesta Amarechesta Register Registers

Eregisi Amagisi Mark Marks

Omobhrobhesa abhabhrobhesa Professor Professors

Etaimuntebho Ichitaimuntebho Timetable Timetables

Eleibholari Ichilaibholari Library Libraries

The Igikuria word for Register 'erechesta' is made up of two morphemes: a bound morpheme e- Which is a prefix typical of Igikuria. Not only does it distinguish

grammatical class but also number in the nominal class. The other morpheme is the free morpheme rechesta which is the root/stem of the lexical item. The stem rechesta is an assimilated version of the English source word register. The prefix e identifies the nominal erechesta as belonging to grammatical Class 9 and also marks singularity. Its plural form as marked by the prefix ama- hence the word' amarechesta' would belong to Class 6.

Igikuria concordial agreement can be seen from the context in which the same word is used.

Tandetera erechesta reyo niichuri (bring for me that register I fill)

The concordial prefix e- (Noun Class 9 prefix marker) in the word erechesta

‘register’ is attached to the determiner–to formreyo 'that’. Reyo 'that' is a dependant of the nominal erechesta 'register' hence the same concordial prefix e- which also marks singularity.

Igikuria English Gloss

Amagisi marks

The two morphemes that make up the word amagisi 'marks' are the bound morpheme a- and the free morpheme magisi 'mark'.a- besides being the Class 6 prefix marker also distinguishes number, in this case plurality. The singular form of this nominal would be eregisi and belong to Class 9 with the prefix structure ne.

The use of this nominal in context displays concordial agreement as evidenced below:

Ono onswe anyore amagisi amaiya gakuya gwitarasa rende bhamahe saseigo.

(Anyone who got good marks which will enable him to go the next class to see me.)

The concordial prefix a- also the noun class 6 prefix marker is attached to the noun

–magisi’marks', adjective –amaiya 'good' and verb gakuya 'to go' to form the noun

Amagisi 'marks', adjective amaiya 'good' and post modifier gakuya 'which will enable to' respectively. Since the adjective and post modifier here are tied to the head word amagisi 'marks' they both take its prefix a-.

Igikuria English Gloss

Eleibrari Library

'Eleibrari,' Igikuria word for library, consists of two morphemes: e- a bound morpheme which is a prefix that distinguishes both grammatical class and number, and 'leibrari' a free morpheme which is the root form of the borrowed word. The prefix e- marks the nominal as a singular form belonging to Class 9. Its plural form would belong to Class 10 marked by the pre-prefix I class prefix ichi- 'leibrari' in one of its contexts of use shifts its form through the process of affixation. This is the process by which a linguistic element is added to a word to produce an inflected or derived form. In the case of eleibrari, the prefix e- is replaced with the prefix ko-

'in' to form the new lexical item koleibrari 'in the library '. The derived nominal belongs to Class 18 Nouns (Locative 'in') as marked by the prefix ko-,this class in

not marked for number. There is also evidence of concordial agreement in the use of the same borrowed nominal as illustrated below:

Ndanyore otamanyere maana ya amang’ana gayo taya koleibrari umahe k odikishonari

(If you don’t know the meanings of those words go to the library and check in the dictionary).

Igikuria English Gloss

Omobhrobhesa professor

Unlike the two examples discussed above, bhrobhesa professor' has only one morpheme: the free morpheme. This is an assimilated form of the word in the source language and belongs to Class 1 nouns which refer to human beings. This class is ordinarily marked by the pre-prefix 0- and prefix mo- which mark singularity.

However, some nominals like bhrobhesa professor' do not exhibit the Class 1 prefix and only exhibit the Class 2 prefix. Mutonyi (2000) makes a similar observation and adds that in this case the Class 2prefix abha-, which 'abhabhrobhesa' the plural form of professor would take, is optional. Just like in the illustrations above, evidence of

Igikuria concordial agreement can be seen in the use of this borrowed nominal as shown below.

Hano olayi yunibhasti noranyore abhatagitari na abhabhrobhesa

(When you go the university, you will find doctors and professors.)

The concordial prefix (Noun Class 2 prefix marker) abha- found in abhabhrobhesa

'professors'is attached to the verb -ra 'will' to become noranyore 'you will find' and the nominal abhatagitari. tagitari (plural). This concordial prefix in these two occurrences is used as a pronoun referring back to the noun abhabhrobhesa 'professors'.

Transport

Table 6: Examples of borrowed lexical nominals from English into Igikuria in the semantic field of transport

Igikuria English Gloss

Singular Plural Singular Plural

Omokondakta Abhakondakta Conductor Conductors

Omotoka Emetoka Motor(car) Motor(cars)

Isibhana Ichisibhana Spanner Spanners

Alaisensi Amalaisensi Licence Licences

Igikuria English Gloss

Omokondakta conductor

The nominal omokondakta 'conductor' is made up of two morphemes like many nominals already discussed: the free morpheme omo- that comprises of the pre- prefix 0- and the prefix -mo-. This prefix structure is characteristic of Class 1 nouns in Igikuria. The prefix structure also marks number, which is singular. The other

morpheme is the free morpheme kondakta drawn from the source language nominal

'conductor'. The plural form of this nominal is abakondakta 'conductors' and belongs to Class 2 nouns characterized by the prefix structure aba-. Apart from class, this prefix structure also indicates number, which is plural in this case. Nouns belonging to these two classes refer to human beings. The use of these borrowed lexical nominals display concordial agreement just like the other examples below.

Tebhi omokondagita oyo iga nguikande gojankishoni eyo erenge embere (tell the conductor that am alighting in the next junction).

The concordial prefix 0- attached to(-mo) kondagita 'conductor' is also attached to the verb phrase -(nguika 'alight' to form the nominal omokondagita

'conductor/singular)' and the relative clause that post modifies it nguikande 'that am alighting(singular) respectively.

Igikuria English Gloss

Omotoka motorcar

This word consists of three morphemes: the free morpheme o - which is also a class

3 prefix marker. This prefix also marks number, singular in this case. The other two morphemes are free morphemes: moto 'motor' and kaa 'car' and are the assimilated versions of the donor language words. The stem –toka'(motor) car' is formed from the process of blending. Blending is the combination of two separate forms to produce a new word by taking the beginning of one word and joining it to the end of the other word. In this case, the last syllable of the word motor is blended with

the word car to form the stem toka'-torcar '. This is then marked for number through the process of inflection. The pre-prefix o- is attached to the prefix mo to mark singularity hence the nominal -omotoka 'car' and e-me- to mark plurality hence the nominal emetoka 'cars '.is proof of concordial concord in the context of use of this word:

Hano nageye Nairobi naroche emetokaa emeru bhokong’u

(When I went to Nairobi I saw very many cars).

The prefix e- attached to (-me-) -toka 'car' is also attached to the adjective –meru to form emeru 'many' This prefix marks plurality hence there is concord in the resultant sentence.

Igikuria English Gloss

Isibhana spanner

The Igikuria term for 'spanner' is made up of two morphemes: the bound morpheme-

I which is the Class 7 prefix marker and also distinguishes number as singular. The other morpheme –bhana is also a bound morpheme as it cannot stand on its own. It is the assimilated form of the source language word 'spanner '. The plural form of spanner isichisibhana 'spanners' and fits into the Class 10 nouns which have the pre- prefix markers I and chi respectively. In its context of use, the borrowed nominal ichisibhana 'spanners' functions as the direct object and not the subject of the sentence. It has no other words that are dependent on it hence there being no need for concordial agreement between it and its dependents. This explains why the

concordial prefix i- in the example below is not attached to any other word in the sentence in reference to this head word.

Tang’a isibhana ntomere kuigora egetanda

(Give me a spanner I use to open up the bed).

Igikuria English Gloss

Elaisensi license

This borrowed nominal comprises of two morphemes: the free morpheme e- which not only marks Class 9 nouns but also distinguishes number. The other morpheme is the free morpheme laisensi. The two morphemes that make up the word amailaisensi 'licence' are the bound morpheme a- and the free morpheme laisensi

'licence'.a- besides being the Class 6 prefix marker also distinguishes number, in this case plurality. The singular form of this nominal would be elaisensi and belong to Class 9 with the prefix structure e.

House hold items

Table 7: Examples of borrowed lexical nominals from English into Igikuria in the semantic field of House hold items

Igikuria English Gloss

Singular Plural Singular Plural

Emaikrowebhu Ichimaikrowebhu Microwave Microwaves

Esofaseti Ichisofaseti Sofaset Sofasets

Ichagi Ichisofaseti Jug Jugs

Igikuria English Gloss

Emaikrowebhu microwave

Emaikrowebhu 'microwave' just like the other nominals discussed comprises of two morphemes: e- and maikrowebu 'microwave '. While e- is the Class 9 prefix marker of singularity, maikrowehbu is the stem and assimilated form of the English word

'microwave'. The plural form of emaikrowebhu 'microwave' falls in Class 10 nouns with the prefix marker ichi- hence the nominal ichimaikrowebu 'microwaves '. The context of use of this borrowed nominal shows concordial agreement too as showed below:

Tang’a emaikrowebhu eyotomere(give me that microwave I use).

Igikuria English Gloss

Esofaseti sofa set

The Igikuria word esofaseti 'sofaset' comprises of three morphemes: bound morpheme e-, and free morphemes sofa 'sofa' and seti 'set'. The free morpheme e- marks Class 9nouns and also distinguishes number, singularity in this case. The free morphemes sofa'sofa' and seti 'set' are absorbed forms of the donor language words.

The lexical nominal sofaseti 'sofaset' is a compound noun comprising of the two nouns sofa 'sofa' and seti' set '. Its plural form belonging to grammatical Class 10 would beIchisofaseti' sofasets' marked by the prefix Ichi-. There is evidence of

Igikuria concordial agreement in the use of the borrowed nominal Ichisofaseti

'sofasets':

Bhabha arache agore ichisofaseti chino chonswe icho

(My mother will buy all these sofasets tomorrow)

The prefix Ichi- attached to sofaseti 'sofaset', chino ' all these 'marks plurality and refers back to the nominal sofaseti hence concordial agreement.

Igikuria English Gloss

Ichagi Jug

Ichagi 'jug' just like the other nominals discussed comprises of two morphemes: I- and chagi 'jug '. While - is the Class 10 prefix marker and indicator of singularity, chagi is the stem and assimilated form of the English word 'jug'. The plural form of ichagi 'jug' falls in Class 6 nouns with the prefix marker a- hence the nominal amachagi 'jugs '. The context of use of this borrowed nominal shows concordial agreement too as shown below:

Hanondayitauninendakugoreichagienooratumeregotoraomonaikirunguri

(When I’ll go to town today I will buy you a jug which you will use to put porridge for the baby)

The concordial prefix i- is attached to eno 'that will' in agreement with the number indicator in the head word ichagi 'jug' (singular). This is in agreement with the rules of Igikuria concordial agreement.

The above explanations are alike to those of earlier studies on the morphological assimilation of borrowed words (Smeaton, 1973; Barkin, 1980; Myers-scotton,

1993&2002 and Fasold and Linton, 2006Muandike, 2011) t that borrowed forms

undergo some degree of morphological assimilation to fit into the system of the target language.

4.2.1Emerging patterns in the Morphological Adaptations of nominals from

English into Igikuria

Table 8: Igikuria noun class pairing

Class Singular Gloss Pairs Class Plural Gloss Number Number 1 Omoónto “person” 2 Aβaánto People

3 Omoté “tree” 4 Emeté Trees

5 iɾiiγéna “stone” 6 Amaγéna Stones

7 Eγeénto “thing” 8 Iβiínto Things

9 Eβatá “duck” 10 iʧiβátá Ducks

11 oɾoβáγᴐ “hedge” iʧiimbáγᴐ Hedges

12 aγaʧúβa “small

bottle”

15 Uγutwí “ear” Amatwí

19 ihiʧúβa “small

bottle(s)”

Mwita (2008)

For the actual list of Igikuria noun classes refer to the literature review (Table 1, sub-section 2.1.4)

As can be observed in Table 4, the noun class system found in Igikuria entails pairs of classes which encode the singular and plural for a particular noun. The nouns in singular will obtain their plural in another class

4.2.2 Summary

It is interesting to note that (67.5 %) of the borrowed nominals identified in all the semantic fields belong to the grammatical class 9 and 10 nouns which are characterized by the prefix e- (singular) and ichi- (plural) respectively. The other grammatical classes account for the remaining (32.5%). It is also worth noting that class 9 and 10 nouns mainly consist of non-human objects and borrowed nouns

(Mutonyi, 2000). This implies that basic concepts in Igikuria do have Igikuria local term that refers to them and the borrowed nouns in this class do not replace any existing native correspondent. That is, these native Igikuria nouns are not threatened by the borrowed nouns. Out of a total 20 Igikuria noun classes (Mutonyi, 2000) only

11 classes are represented by the borrowed nouns, an indicator that Igikuria still has so many local nominals that belong to the other classes not represented. From the above, all the borrowed nouns in the semantic fields talked about have gone through some degree of adaptation into the Igikuria morphological system. This is depicted by their structure which is similar to the Igikuria noun structure that has a (pre)prefix and a stem/root. Each of the borrowed nominals also fits into to Igikuria grammatical class and some are marked for number in the same way native Igikuria nominals are. Additionally, the nouns follow the rules of Igikuria Concordial

agreement in the sentences in which they appear. These characteristics are evident across the age and gender dimensions talked about in the preceding parts, assign that in spite of the age or gender of the speaker, borrowed cultural lexical nominals are made to adhere to the Igikuria morphology hence act like local Igikuria nouns. This also implies that the borrowings identified, whether in the semantic fields with the highest or lowest number of borrowings, all undergo morphological assimilation into the Igikuria system.

4.3 Sociolinguistic reasons why Igikuria borrows nominals from English.

Table 9 below provides the reasons cited by respondents regarding borrowed nominals from English into Igikuria and the percentages for responses are also given. Respondents were asked to provide reasons for borrowing nominals from

English into Igikuria. For the actual questions refer to the interview schedule in

Appendix 2. They were supplied with some possible choices. A key for this table is given in the next page.

Table 9: Reasons for borrowing nominals from English into Igikuria

QUESTIONS RESPONSES %

A B C D

Q1 61 19 16 4

Q2 65 6 10 19

Q3 60 20 15 5

Q4 25 40 20 15

Q5 6 94

Key

Q 1: Reasons for using (borrowed) English words:

A=No Igikuria correspondents,

B=Word only known in English

C =English word more readily available,

D=other reasons

Q 2: Reasons for Igikuria (in) sufficiency:

A=Inability to communicate effectively,

B =Used to using English words while speaking Igikuria.

C=There are viable equivalents for English words used

D= other reasons.

Q 3: Effect of borrowing on Igikuria:

A= Strengthens Igikuria,

B=Weakens Igikuria,

C=Other effect.

Q 4: Are there Igikuria native correspondents of borrowed English nominals (I)?

A =Yes,

B=No,

C=Maybe

D =Other.

Q5: Igikuria native correspondents of the loaned English nominals (II)

A = could give correspondents

B = could not give correspondents.

When asked to elucidate why they have employed some English words yet they are speaking Igikuria (61%) of the respondents said there are no Igikuria correspondents for the English words he had used. (19%) said they only know the word in English, (16%) said the English word is more readily available while (4%) cited other reasons for instance the need to accommodate the non-Igikuria speakers.

Two respondents insisted that the English word is actually Igikuria word.

Responding to the question on whether the respondents felt Igikuria alone was sufficient in discussing their topics (when speaking to other Igikuria speakers,

(65%)felt that this was because they would not communicate effectively and make themselves understood while (6%) said it was because they were just used to using

English words. (10%) felt Igikuria alone was adequate because it had correspondents for the English words borrowed although they had not used these themselves. (19%) cited other reasons, for Igikuria alone is not adequate. Example of these include the English word is considered by the natives as being more prestigious compared to the native word and that since the speaker spoke other languages (English and Kiswahili) it was only natural that they should use these while speaking Igikuria.

When asked what effect they thought this kind of borrowing had on Igikuria (60%) felt that this kind of borrowing improved Igikuria since it helped speakers express themselves and communicate although they felt that Igikuria should get correspondent elements for these items. (20%) felt this type of borrowing weakens

Igikuria. (15%) felt that since there were Igikuria correspondents for the English lexical nominal utilized, Igikuria should come up with them. (5%) gave other reasons for the positive effect of this type of borrowing on Igikuria such as borrowed nouns being made to sound like Igikuria words through adaptation and expanding the glossary of Igikuria.

Worth noting is that, only (25%) of the respondents felt there are correspondent elements for the borrowed English words they used. Nevertheless, only (1%) gave correspondent elements while the correspondent elements given by (10%) of the respondents were themselves words borrowed from English. These words include:

esakramenti 'sacrament', lsibhiti ‘speed’ and egeki 'cake' were indigenous Igikuria words. (40%) of the respondents felt that there are no indigenous correspondents for the borrowed words they have used while 20% are not sure. (15%) gave other reasons.

When all the respondents were asked to give what they thought were possible

Igikuria correspondents of some of the borrowed words they had used 94% were unable to do so; only6% did as demonstrated in table 9 above.

From the foregoing, it was evident that Igikuria lacks native words to communicate ideas that are new to the Igikuria culture hence the need to borrow cultural lexical nominals from English into Igikuria in order to fill the lexical gaps in this language.

It is also apparent that these borrowed lexical nominals strengthen the language since Abakuria are able to communicate ideas and thoughts since their language lack indigenous correspondents’ elements for those new ideas or concepts.

4.3.1 Need to fill lexical Gaps

Borrowing in order to fill lexical gaps in the recipient was also evident when there was no alternative term in Igikuria. For instance, ‘ibhilau ‘pilau’, obholeki ‘break’, ekombyuta ‘computer’ among many others. Some nominals are borrowed from

English into Igikuria for the need to incorporate new concepts in the Igikuria. The influx of new concepts like the examples above have all ended up being nativized

into Igikuria respectively due to the need to incorporate those new concepts into

Igikuria since there no correspondents referring to those concepts.

4.3.2 Prestige

Lexical nominal borrowings from English into Igikuria happen even if the locals have correspondent terms for the borrowed words. This occurs, especially when the

English word is perceived by the natives as being more prestigious compared to the native word. This is the case of the words like, omusiki ‘Music ’and ibhia‘ beer’ among others. These words are borrowed yet they have correspondent words omobhari, and amarwa respectively in the Igikuria language.

4.3.3. Stylistic Reasons

Some of the respondents to the question that asked why some people borrow words from English while they have alternative words in Igikuria said that it somehow sounded unnatural using omobhari for music, to a musician even though he/she may understand what omobhari is. More examination on the similar question demonstrated that the borrowed word omusiki for omobhari indicated that the speaker knew that he/she was speaking to a learned person (a musician).

Although this on the other hand indicated prestige of the borrowed word (because it is a word for the educated people and not for other ordinary ones), it also communicated to the researcher that speakers were instinctively aware of language style to be applied in particular contexts. In this case, they switch to certain words

that they believe to belong to the field to which the addressee belongs by borrowing specific items.

4.4 Summary

This chapter shows the data which was collected to facilitate this study has been presented, analyzed and argued. The aim has been on identifying and classifying some of the nominals that Igikuria has borrowed from English, how these are adapted into the Igikuria morphological system and sociolinguistic reasons for borrowing nominals from English into Igikuria. It came out that when borrowed lexical items are used in the recipient language, they assimilate the language's morphological features. They are also important to communication in the borrowing language in that they strengthen the language by expanding its vocabularies. It is also evident that the findings of this study are parallel to those of previous studies which demonstrate that sex and age are social factors known to influence language use in many societies (Trudgil, 1974). The next chapter shall give a review of the research findings presented. From these, conclusions, recommendations and suggestions for further research shall be given.

CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to provide a summary of findings, conclusion, recommendations and areas of further research.

5.1 Findings

From the first objective which was to identify the nominals that Igikuria has borrowed from English and analyze them by age and gender, a total of 186nominals borrowed from English into Igikuria were identified and classified into ten semantic fields: religion, science and technology, clothing, administration, transport, business, household items, education, medicine and food. Frequencies of these were then compiled in regard to the variables of data source, gender and age. It was observed that out of the two data sources that is, native speaker’s intuition, and

Questionnaires, questionnaires brought forth the utmost number of borrowed nominals.

It was also noted that there are differences in the number of borrowings in the different semantic fields with the highest number of borrowings being drawn from the semantic field of education while the semantic field of household items had the least. It was observed too that there were variations in the borrowing patterns of the

different genders and age groups. Male respondents were found to borrow more than their female counterparts. This was because men are mobile while women are more sedentary. The older respondents borrowed more than the younger speakers. The most likely reasons include: language awakening interest for example FM radio stations like Radio Togotane where youths compete for fluency in Igikuria and in several youth forums where they are challenged to speak in Igikuria.

In the second objective, in which the adaptation of the borrowed nominals identified in the study was discussed, it was noted that these nominals are integrated into the

Igikuria morphological system and behave like native Igikuria nominals. Firstly, the borrowed nominals take up Igikuria prefixes which mark grammatical class in

Igikuria nominals. For this reason, the nominals belong to distinct Igikuria nominal classes. Additionally, to this, the prefixes also mark a number distinction in the borrowed nominals just like in native Igikuria nominals. In the same way, the nominals display concordial concord with the other constituents in the sentences in which they occur. This is in accordance with Igikuria concordial- concord rules.

In the third objective, this study found out that many lexical items are borrowed from English into Igikuria because there were no alternative terms for the concepts in Igikuria. Alternatively, other words were borrowed even though the concepts already existed in Igikuria. In addition, the study found out that the motivations for

lexical borrowing in Igikuria included need (filling gaps), prestige and stylistic reasons.

5.2 Conclusions

Borrowed nominals identified and discussed in this study indicated that Igikuria borrowed nominals heavily from English; these borrowed items are adapted into the

Igikuria morphological system and reasons for borrowing nominals from Igikuria into English were also identified. For instance, these findings indicated that Igikuria use some English loans even if similar concepts are found in Igikuria. This in general could be referred as substitution of the local nominals by borrowed words from

English which are regarded as more prestigious. It was pointed out (cf: 4.3.2) that lexical borrowing is a result of prestige in some borrowed lexical items among other factors. It has been argued in previous literature that borrowing has a negative consequence on the recipient language. However, this study has demonstrated that lexical borrowing fortifies a language and expands its glossary.

5.3 Recommendations

From the findings in this study, it is clear that the belief that borrowing is harmful to native languages is false. Cultural borrowing, which is the center of this study, is actually useful to the native language as it expands the native language's vocabularies. Cultural borrowing Igikuria should be advocated for since it is away in which the language can expand its vocabularies.

5.4 Suggestions for further research.

The scope of this study was limited to nominals borrowed from English into

Igikuria, their morphological assimilation and the sociolinguistic motivations to lexical borrowing. There are yet other similar areas on which future research work can be done. For instance:

1. This study has focused on nouns alone; there are other grammatical

categories that can be studied such as verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

2. Igikuria speakers live with speakers of other Kenyan native languages. This

study has concentrated on borrowed forms from English; a study could be

done on borrowings from the other native languages and their impact on

Igikuria.

3. The current study has focused on morphological adaptations of lexical

nominals into the system of Igikuria. Syntactic, phonological and structural,

stylistic, pragmatic adaptations are also worth studying. Therefore, this study

recommends that thorough studies should be done to investigate whether or

not the influence of English is extended to all these linguistic aspects.

4. This study has focused on direct borrowing of lexical nominals from English

into Igikuria; a study on indirect borrowing from English via Kiswahili into

Igikuria can be done.

5.5 Summary

This chapter handled the summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations and possible areas of further research.

REFERENCES

Appel, R.&Muysken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism. New York, and Hall Inc. Bynon, T. (1977). Historical Linguistics. New York. Cambridge University Press. Barkin, F. (1980). 'The Role of Loanword Assimilation in Gender Assignment'. The Bilingual Review 7, 105-112. Cammenga, J. (2004). Igikuria Phonology and Morphology. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. El-Khafaifi, H. (1985). The role of the Cairo academy in coining Arabic scientific terminology: A historical and linguistic evaluation, (Unpublished PhD thesis), University of Utah. Fasold, R., &Conno-Linton, J. (eds) (2006) Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Field, F. W. (2002). Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Furaha, J.K.E. (2007). A Phonological Analysis of Kenyan English (Ken E), (Unpublished M.Phil. Thesis). Moi University. Guthrie, M. (1967 – 1971). Comparative Bantu (Vols 1,2,3,4). Farnborough. Gregg International Publishers. Hafiz, A.A. (2015). Lexical Borrowing (Tarib) in Arabic Computing Terminology: Issues and Strategies, (Durham theses). Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11195/ Hassaine, Z. (1984). The Spanish and French influence in Western Algeria: a case of borrowing, (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Bath. Hoffer, B.L (2002). Language Borrowing and Language Diffusion: An Overview. Intercultural Communication Studies XI (4); Trinity University, 37 Hock, H. (1986). Principles of Historical Linguistics. New York, Mouton de Gruyter Hope, T. (1971). Lexical borrowing in the romance languages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hudson, R. A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. New York, Cambridge University Press. Hudyma, K. (2012). Language maintenance and shift: Case study of Ukrainian in Saskatchewan. (MA thesis). University of Saskatchewan; Saskatoon. Kisembe, L. (2003). The Linguistic Effects of English on Luyia Languages.Estudios de Linguistica Applicada, Julio, 21, 037, 53-70. Kuitert, S.R. (2013). English Loanwords in Norwegian, A loanword processing study in young speakers of Norwegian. (MA thesis). Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Trondheim, spring. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lyons, J. (2002), Language and Linguistics: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge Unversity Press. Mbaabu, I. (1996). Language Policy in East Africa: A Dependency Theory Perspective. Nairobi. Educational Research and Publication. Mesthrie, R. (2000). Introduction to Socio-linguistics. Edinburgh University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling Languages. New York, Oxford University Press Myers-Scotton, C. (2002) Contact Linguistics. New York. Oxford University Press. Miller, C. P. (2000). Modifying language beliefs: A role for mother-tongue advocates. Assessing ethno linguistic vitality: Theory and practice, ed. By Gloria Kindell, and M. Paul Lewis. Selected papers from the Third International Language Assessment Conference. Dallas, TX: SIL. Moravcsik, E. A. (1978). Reduplicative Constructions, In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.) Universals of Human Language. Stanford, Stanford University Press. Muandike, F.M. (2011). Linguistic borrowing and language vitality in Lubukusu, (Unpublished MA dissertation) Kenyatta University. Muthwii, M. (1994). Variability in Language Use: A Study of Kalenjin Speakers of English and Kiswahili in Kenya, (PhD thesis). University of East Anglia.

Mugenda, O.M., &Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research methods, qualitative and quantitative approaches. African Centre for technology studies, Nairobi, Kenya. Mnyonge, B (2011). The influence of Kiswhili on the Giha Lexicon. (MA dissertation) University of Dar es Salaam. Mutonyi, N. (2000) Aspects of Bukusu Morphology and Phonology, (PhD Thesis). The Ohio State University.

Ndambuki, B.M. (2013). A constraint-based analysis of Kikamba nativized loanwords, (MA thesis). Kenyatta University.

Mwita, L. C. (2008). Verbal tone in Kuria, (PhD Dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Nurse, D., & Gerard P. (1980). The Bantu Languages of East Africa: A Lexicostatistical Survey. In Polomé Edgar and C. P. Hill (eds.). Language in Tanzania, Oxford University Press: London.

Nurse, D&Philippson, G. (2003). The Bantu Languages. London. Routledge.

Ngom, F. (2000). Sociolinguistic motivations of lexical borrowings in Senegal. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 30(2), 159-172

Ochwaya, Y.E. (1992). The Influence of English on the Phonological Features of Lunyala. (M.Phil. Thesis). Moi University

Odden, D. (1987). Predicting Tone in Kuria. Current Approaches to African Linguistics, 4, 311 – 326.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. New York. Cambridge University Press.

Owino, D. (2003) Phonological Nativisation of Dholuo Words, (PhD. Thesis). University of Pretoria.

Pop lack, S., Sankoff, D. & Miller, C. (1988). The Social Correlates and Linguistic Processes of Lexical Borrowing and Assimilation. Linguistics 26, 47-104

Ringbom, H. (1983). Borrowing and lexical transfer, Applied Linguistics, 4 (3), 207- 212.

Rose, S. (2001). Tense and Aspect in Kuria. AAP 67, 61 – 100.

Sapir, E. (2001). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 159 Sa'id, M. (1967). Lexical innovation through borrowing in modern standard Arabic. New Jersey: Princeton University Sheng, Y. (2009). Borrowed Words in English and Chinese Vocabulary. English Language Teaching. 2(1), 62-67. Sillery, A. (1936). Notes for a grammar of the Kuria Language. Bantu Studies, 10, 9 – 29. Smeaton, B. H. (1973). Lexical Expansion Due to Technical Change, Indian University Publications, Bloomington. Styblo, M.J. (2007). English loanwords in modern Russian language, (MA thesis). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; USA. Thomason, & Sarah G. (2001). Language Contact. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Thomason, S.& Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tuwakham, M. (2005). Language vitality and language attitude among theYong people in Lamphun province: A sociolinguistic study, (MA thesis). Payap University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Trudgil, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Penguin Group. London. Walker, J. B. (2013). Comparative tense and aspect in the Mara Bantu languages: Towards a linguistic history, (MA thesis), Trinity Western University. Wamalwa, M. (1997) Kusharabukwa Msamiatiwa Kiswahili katika Kibukusu, (Unpublished M.Phil. Thesis). Moi University. Whiteley, W. H. (1971). Language use and social change: Problems of multilingualism with special reference to Eastern Africa. Oxford University Press, London. Whiteley, W. H. (1955). The Structure of the Kuria Verbal and its Position in the Sentence. (PhD Dissertation). University of London. Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Yi, A. (2012). On the Factors Influencing L1 Transfer. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2372-2377.doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11. Zawawi, S. (1974). Loanwords and their effect on the classification of Swahili Nominals: A Morphological Treatment, (PhD Thesis). University of Columbia.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE

Background Information

Thank you for agreeing to be part of this study. The information given will be used with confidentiality only for this linguistic study.

A: Respondent's particulars

Age: ------~ Place of birth: ------

Gender: ------

B) Questions

1. Name some of the words in the following semantic fields that you use in

daily life communication which you believe were borrowed from English.

a) Education-

b) Science& technology-

c) Transport-

d) Medicine-

e) Business-

f) Religion-

g) Administration-

h) Clothing-

i) Household items-

j) Food

k) 2. Which groups of people mostly use borrowed words?

APPENDIX 2: ENGLISH INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Thank you for agreeing to be part of this study. The information given will be used with confidentiality only for this linguistic study.

A: Respondent's particulars

Age: ------Place of birth: ------

Gender: ------

B: questions

The following questions have choices; select one from the ones provided

Q 1: Why do people use English words when they are speaking Igikuria? a) No Igikuria correspondent. b) Lexical nominal is known in English only c) English word more readily accessible. d) Other reasons

Q 2: Do you think Igikuria alone is enough in discussing a topic without using words from other languages like English? Why? a) Failure to communicate efficiently. b) Fond of using English words while speaking Igikuria. c) There are possible correspondents for English words used. d) Other causes

Q 3: What effect do you think this kind of borrowing has on Igikuria? a) Fortifies Igikuria. b) Weakens Igikuria.

c) Other type of outcome.

Q4: Why would Igikuria speakers adopt a word from English rather than make up an original word? a) Yes b) No c) Maybe d) Other.

APPENDIX 3: REACTIONS TO LOAN WORDS UTILIZED IN IGIKURIA

Q 1: Motivations for using (loan) English words. a) No Igikuria correspondent. b) Lexical nominal is known in English only c) English word more readily accessible. d) Other reasons.

Q 2: Reasons for Igikuria (in) adequacy. a) Failure to communicate efficiently. b) Fond of using English words while speaking Igikuria. c) There are possible correspondents for English words used. d) Other causes.

Q 3: Consequence of borrowing on Igikuria. a) Fortifies Igikuria. b) Weakens Igikuria. c) Other type of outcome.

Q 4: Are there Igikuria correspondents of the loan English nominals (I)? a) Yes b) No c) Maybe d) Other.

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF BORROWED WORDS

List of borrowed cultural lexical nominals in identified semantic fields

1. EDUCATION

Igikuria English Gloss

Omobhrobhesa Professor

Ichaki Chalk

Erechesta Register

Ekolechi College

Etaimutebho Time table

Eyunibhasiti University

Elaibhorari Library

Etikigiri Degree

Amagisi Marks

Etigishonari Dictionary

Ebhihechiti PhD

Itibhuloma Diploma

Irigaseti Gazette (newspaper)

Ekelasi Class

Esabhuchegiti Subject

Iritesiki Desk

Isukuru School

Ehobhisi Office

Ebhaili File

Irula Ruler

Etamu Term

Enasari Nursery

Igireti Grade

Iribhoti Report

Ekosi Course

Ebhiisi Fees

Lekichara Lecturer

Elaini Line

Ebhenseri Pencil

Ebhointi Point

Etasita Duster

Eloka Locker

Itushoni Tuition

2. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOLGY

Igikuria English Gloss

Itiibhi Television

Ibhiiteo Video

Ekombyuta Computer

Itibhiti DVD

Isikirachikati Scratch card

Etebhu Tape

Esobhotiwea Software

Eseibha Cyber

Iintaneti Internet

Bhesibhuku Face book

Emasine Machine

Eantibhairasi Antivirus

Esitetasi Status

Esiidi CD

Esenema Cinema

Etesikitobh Desk top

Ichaacha Charger

Ekamera Camera

Ememorikati Memory card

Isimukati Sim card

3. ADMINISTRATION

Igikuria English Gloss

Ekaunti County

Eribhoti Report

Ebhomu Form

Esatibhiketi Certificate

Ehobhisi Office

Omogabhana Governor

Omoseneta Senator

Kansala Councilor

Isitiebhu CDP

Itisitrikit District

Ebholisi Policy

Ibhisitola Pistol

Isitambu Stamp

Ekambeni Campaign

Omobhraimuminista Prime minister

Omomeya Mayor

Ewoti Ward

4. TRANSPORT

Igikuria English Gloss

Omotoka Motor (car)

Iinjini Engine

Eoili Oil

Ekilachi Clutch

Omonterebha Driver

Igia Gear

Omokondakita Conductor

Itielobi TLB

Ikilomita Kilometer

Isibhana Spanner

Omomekanika Mechanic

Igirisi Grease

Ebhetroli Petrol

Isitata Starting the Engine

Ishuarensi Insurance

Elaiseni License

Itiketi Ticket

Ebhasi Bus

Isibhiti Speed

Obholeki Break

Ekona Corner

Esebhhtibeliti Safety belt

Isibhuringi Spring

Isitiaringiwili Steering wheel

Eshoku Shock

Elori Lorry

Itragita Tractor

Garachi Garage

Kaabhaki Car park

Ebhaisekeri Bicycle

5. CLOTHING

Igikuria English Gloss

Ehobharoli Overall

Esweta Sweater

Isigeti Skirt

Elong’I Long (trouser)

Esaati Shirt

Esoogisi Socks

Ebhesti Vest

Etahulo Towel

Ekombhota Comforter

Egoti Coat

Ibhlausi Blouse

Ichageti Jacket

Ichambha Jumper

Enabhukini Napkin

6. RELIGION

Igikuria English Gloss

Esakaramenti Sacrament

Ibibilia Bible

Omuisiraeli Israelite

Esabhato Sabbath

Esabhuri Psalm/ Rosary

Omumishienari Missionary

Omukatuliki Catholic

Ebhatiso Baptism

Omubhishobhu Bishop

Ekorani Koran

Omupurotestanti Protestant

Omokristo Christian

Eholelu Holy

Omobharisayo Pharisees

Omobhasita Pastor

Ikruseti Crusade

Ebhulibiti Pulpit

Ikwaya Choir

7. HOUSEHOLD ITEMS

Igikuria English Gloss

Ifuriji Fridge

Isinki Sink

Esobhaseti Sofa set

Ingilasi Glass

Ethamosi Thermos

Ewoloyuniti Wall unit

Eturei Tray

Irichagi Jug

Ebheseni Basin

Esosa Saucer

Ekabhati Cupboard

Obholengeti Blanket

Emaikrowebhu Microwave

Ebhani Pan

8. BUSINESS

Igikuria English Gloss

Esitoku Stock

Ehoteli Hotel

Erenti Rent

Ebacheti Budget

Esubhamaketi Supermarket

Imilioni Million

Erisiti Receipt

Esoda Soda

Omogasitama Customer

Etauni Town

Ichisenti/Ichisilingi Cents/ Shillings (Money)

Eloni Loan

Ichenji Change

Ekaunta Counter

Ekabhitalo Capital

Ebhenki Bank

9. MEDICINE

Igikuria English Gloss

Omonasi Nurse

Ethieta Theatre

Ebhamasi Pharmacy

Elabharatori Laboratory

Egisireyi X-ray

Ikiliniki Clinic

Bhanatolo Panadol

Omotegetari Doctor

Ewoti Ward

Isibitali Hospital

Iribharoro Referral (hospital)

Isibhitari Mission hospital

Obhareseni Operation

10. Food

Igikuria English Gloss

Ichuisi Juice

Ebhilau Pilau

Ibhubhe Buffet

Esosechi Sausage

Esoda Soda

Esubageti Spaghetti

Indomili Indomie

Ibhisa Pizza

Esambusa Samosa

Ichibhusi Chips

Ibhisuguti Biscuits

Egeki Cake

APPENDIX 5: KURIA EAST SUB COUNTY MAP

APPENDIX 6. APPROVAL OF RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSAL

APPENDIX 7: RESEARCH AUTHOURIZATION

APPENDIX 8: RESEARCH PERMIT