The University of Dodoma University of Dodoma Institutional Repository http://repository.udom.ac.tz
Social Sciences Master Dissertations
2014 Assessing Kibena (G 63) endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter
Mgimba, Felician Boniface
The University of Dodoma
Mgimba, F. B. (2014). Assessing Kibena (G 63) endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter (Master's dissertation). The University of Dodoma, Dodoma. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12661/1934 Downloaded from UDOM Institutional Repository at The University of Dodoma, an open access institutional repository. ASSESSING KIBENA (G 63) ENDANGERMENT BASING ON INTERGENERATIONAL LANGUAGE TRANSMISSION PARAMETER
By
Felician Boniface Mgimba
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts in Linguistics of the University of Dodoma
The University of Dodoma
October, 2014
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that she has read and hereby recommends for acceptance by the
University of Dodoma dissertation entitled “Assessment of Kibena (G63)
Endangerment Basing on Intergenerational Language Transmission Parameter” in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics of the University of Dodoma.
…………………………………………………..
Dr. Rafiki .Y. Sebonde
(SUPERVISOR)
Date……………………………………….
i DECLARATION
AND
COPYRIGHT
I, Felician Boniface Mgimba declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that it has not been presented and will not be presented to any other University for a similar or any other degree award.
Signature………………………………………………..
No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the author or the University of Dodoma.
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work could not reached the current form without the contribution of the committed individuals who sacrificed their time and efforts to make sure that my work becomes a reality. It will be unfair if I do not recognize their contribution. Therefore I commend their contribution by giving them my heartfelt recognition as follows:
First, I thank the Almighty God creator of heaven and earth who protected and inspired me to do this work. He encouraged me to continue with this work even in difficult and desperate moments.
Second, I sincerely feel indebted to acknowledge the great contribution of Dr. Rafiki .Y.
Sebonde of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of the University of
Dodoma. She was my supervisor therefore she guided me in every stage of the preparation of this work without giving up. She had a lot of work to do ranging from class room teaching to supervising graduate works, but whenever I asked her for consultation she humbly accepted and advised me to the best of her knowledge. Apart from playing a role of a supervisor, she was also my classroom instructor. Being my classroom instructor she enlightened me about research methodology in humanities particularly in sociolinguistics. Really she deserves congratulations!
Third, I must admit that my family, that is my wife Oliver Augustino Nyambo, my children; Felista and Thomas, and also my sister Irene Haule helped me to accomplish this work. They always created conducive environment for me to do the research work with maximum tranquility. They always made sure that I got all essential requirements, care and encouragement which necessitated the accomplishment of this work in time.
They sometimes missed my love and presence especially during the time of my field data
iii collection. Their contribution cannot be exhausted in this paragraph. I pray so that the
Almighty God rewards them in abundance.
Fourth, I acknowledge the contribution of my parents; that is my father Boniface Thomas
Mgimba and my mother Isabella Anthony Mkinga, for their parental love and care. They also used their limited resources to support my education.
Fifth, I feel proud to be among the products of prominent linguists, who taught me different linguistics courses when pursuing my course work. The linguists who deserve this special reference are Prof. Casmir Rubagumya, Prof. Kulikoyela Kahigi and Dr.
Rose Upor of the University of Dar es salaam. It is also my pleasure to thank Dr. Elias
Songhoyi who was the coordinator of postgraduate programmes of the School of
Humanities for his academic advice. The commitment of all these prominent personalities made my dreams of becoming one of the linguists a reality.
Sixth, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my employer, The University of
Dodoma, for supporting my studies and giving me time to fulfill my obligations as a student. The principal of the College of Education (COED), Dean of the School of
Curriculum and Teacher Education and the Head of the Department of Language, Fine and Performing Arts Education (LFPAE) also deserve special thanks for supporting my studies. More over my fellow staff members of the COED especially those of my department deserve a word of thanks.
Seventh, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of some committed individuals whose devoted efforts led me to reach this academic level. These individuals are late Adelhem
Thomas Mgimba may the Almighty God rest his soul in eternal peace, Mr. Alfred A.
Mkinga my uncle and Rev. Fr.Xaver Mlelwa the former parish priest of Madunda Parish
iv of Njombe Catholic Diocese. All these individuals sponsored my studies at different levels of education.
Finally, I must acknowledge the office of the Njombe district commissioner, the village leaders in three villages where I conducted my research; Uwemba, Mtwango and
Kidugala. I also thank my MA (Linguistics) classmates of 2012/2013 for their cooperation when pursuing our course work and all individuals whose names are not mentioned here but have contributed in one way or another to the accomplishment of this work.
vii DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my late young sister Vera Boniface Mgimba who passed away in June, 2009 when I was pursuing my undergraduate degree at Tumaini University
Makumira, may the Almighty God rest her soul in eternal peace, Amen!
viii viii viii ABSTRACT
This work aimed at assessing Kibena endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter. The researcher worked on three objectives which were; domains of its use, the role of intermarriages and speakers‟ attitudes as a motivating factor behind transmitting it to younger generations. He carried out this study in
Uwemba, Mtwango and Kidugala villages in Njombe and Wanging‟ombe districts in
Southern Highlands of Tanzania. In the study, the researcher used both quantitative and qualitative methods. He used questionnaires to collect quantitative data. It is through this method where data were gathered and analyzed quantitatively to get percentages, frequencies (recurring numbers) and tables which reflected the endangerment status of
Kibena basing on the three variables investigated. The researcher also used interviews and participant observation (qualitative methods) to gather information which supplemented those collected through questionnaires. The study revealed that Kibena is on grade two (2) of endangerment when focusing on domains of its use, meaning that it has limited domains of use. Kibena is also on stage 3 of endangerment that is it is definitively endangered when considering the role of intermarried speakers on transmitting it to younger generations. Basing on its speakers‟ attitudes it is on grade 3 of endangerment, signifying that many of Kibena members support its maintenance but few of them are indifferent and support its loss. The general conclusion considering the interplay of the assessment of all three objectives by rating on the LVEAG UNESCO
(2003) factor number one, Kibena is definitively endangered. This means that its intergenerational transmission is delinked, since the language is used mostly by parental generations and upwards. This work has greatly contributed to reveal the endangerment status of the language to date. This situation alerts Kibena speakers and other stake holders to take deliberate measures to rescue it from further endangerment.
ix ix TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION ...... i DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT...... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... v DEDICATION ...... viii ABSTRACT...... ix TABLE OF CONTENTS...... x LIST OF TABLES ...... xiv LIST OF MAPS ...... xv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... xvi
CHAPTER ONE ...... 1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ...... 1
1.0 Introduction...... 1
1.1 General Information on Language Endangerment...... 1
1.2 Background Information about Kibena ...... 3
1.3 Statement of the Problem ...... 7
1.4 Objectives of the Study ...... 8
1.4.1 General Objective ...... 8
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ...... 8
1.5 Research Questions ...... 9
1.6 Significance of the Study ...... 9
1.7 Definitions of Key Terms ...... 10
1.8 Chapter Summary ...... 11
CHAPTER TWO ...... 12
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 12
2.0 Introduction ...... 12
2.1 Theoretical Framework ...... 12
2.1.1 Language Vitality and Endangerment Assessment Guidelines (LVEAG) ...... 12
2.2 Literature Review...... 19
2.2.1 The Concept of Language Endangerment...... 19
2.2.2 Language Death and Endangerment in the Ancient World ...... 19
ii 2.2.3 Language Endangerment in the Contemporary World ...... 21
2.2.4 The Situation of Language Endangerment in Africa ...... 21
2.2.5 Endangered Language Groups and Families in Africa ...... 25
2.2.6 Language Endangerment in East Africa ...... 27
2.2.7 Intergenerational Language Transmission and Language Endangerment ...... 29
2.2.8 The Relationship between Intergenerational Language Transmission, Mixed
Language Marriages and Language Endangerment...... 35
2.2.9 Domains of Language Use, Language Speakers‟ Attitudes and Intergenerational
Language Transmission ...... 37
2.3 Chapter Summary ...... 40
CHAPTER THREE ...... 411
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...... 411
3.0 Introduction ...... 411
3.1 Research Design...... 41
3.2 Area of Study ...... 42
3.3 Sample Size and Sample Selection ...... 42
3.4 Data Collection Methods ...... 44
3.4.1 The Use of Questionnaires ...... 44
3.4.2 The Interview Method...... 45
3.4.3 Participant Observation...... 45
3.5 Research Instruments ...... 46
3.6 Data Analysis ...... 47
3.7 Research Ethics ...... 47
3.8 Validity and Reliability of Data ...... 49
3.9 Chapter Summary ...... 50
CHAPTER FOUR...... 51
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION...... 51
4.0 Introduction ...... 51
4.1 Basic Information of the Respondents ...... 52
4.2 Domains of Language Use ...... 53
4.2.1 Home Domain ...... 54
iii i 4.2.2 Burial Ceremonies ...... 55
4.2.3 Marriage Ceremonies ...... 55
4.2.4 Religion ...... 56
4.2.5 Traditional Rituals ...... 56
4.2.6 Agriculture ...... 56
4.2.7 Shops...... 57
4.2.8 Markets ...... 57
4.2.9 Monthly Open Markets ...... 58
4.2.10 Hospital ...... 58
4.2.11 Discussion ...... 59
4.3 The Role of Intermarriages on Transmitting Kibena to Younger Generations ...... 65
4.3.1 Language Used for Communication among Exogamous Partners ...... 65
4.3.2 Teaching Kibena to Children of Exogamous Bena Families ...... 66
4.3.3 Domains of Kibena Use among Exogamous Family Members ...... 66
4.3.4 Exogamous Children‟s Ability to Use Kibena...... 67
4.3.5 Discussion ...... 67
4.4 Attitudes of Kibena Speakers...... 71
4.4.1 The Importance of Kibena in the Context of Kiswahili Dominance ...... 72
4.4.2 Pride of Kibena Speakers on the Progressive Use of their Language...... 72
4.4.3 Attitudes of Kibena Speakers on Transmitting their Language to Children...... 73
4.4.4 Attitudes of Kibena Speakers on their Language in this Era of Globalization ...... 74
4.4.5 Discussion ...... 74
4.5 Chapter Summary ...... 79
CHAPTER FIVE ...... 81
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 81
5.0 Introduction ...... 81
5.1 Summary ...... 81
5.2 Conclusion ...... 83
5.3 Recommendations ...... 85
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 85
5.5 Chapter Summary ...... 86
xii REFERENCES ...... 87
APPENDICES ...... 95
xiii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Kibena Dialects According to Different Sources ...... 6
Table 2: Assessing Language Endangerment Basing on Intergenerational Language
Transmission ...... 14
Table 3: Assessing Language Endangerment Basing on Domains of Language Use ...... 16
Table 4: Assessing Language Endangerment Basing on Community Members‟ Attitude
to their Language...... 18
Table 5: Summary of the Respondents ...... 43
Table 6: Language Use in Different Domains ...... 54
Table 7: Language Use among Exogamous Bena Partners ...... 65
Table 8: Domains of Kibena Use among Exogamous Family Members...... 66
Table 9: Responses on the Importance of Kibena in the Context of Kiswahili Dominance
...... 72
Table 10: Responses on the Pride of Kibena Speakers on the Progressive Use of their
Language ...... 73
xiv LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Kibena Speakers and their Neighbours ...... 4
xv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AA Afro - Asiatic
COED College of Education
Dr Doctor
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
ECLs Ethnic Community Languages
L1 First Language
LFPAE Language, Fine and Performing Arts Education
LOI Language of Instruction
LVEAG Language Vitality and Endangerment Assessment Guideline
MA Master of Arts
N Number (Frequencies)
NC Niger - Congo
NC Nilo - Saharan
Prof Professor
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UNESCO United Nations Science and Culture Organization
URT United Republic of Tanzania
xvi CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.0 Introduction
This section is about the background information of the study. It comprises of the general information on language endangerment and the background information about Kibena.
All these are pivotal to understanding this study. The other information treated in this section covers issues such as statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study and definitions of key terms.
1.1 General Information on Language Endangerment
According to UNESCO (2003) a language is said to be endangered when it is on the path towards extinction. Krauss (2007) says a language is endangered if it is not transmitted to the younger generation. Therefore, if the language is only spoken by adult members of the population while the children shift to the dominant language in the area such as
Kiswahili in East Africa then such language is said to be endangered.
Batibo (2005) indicated six criteria for the language to be severely endangered, among them being the failure of the minority language speakers to pass it to the younger generation. This happens when the parents and other adult speakers of the language stop teaching it to their children. From the third quarter of the 20th century to the present there has been a great debate on the need to conserve endangered languages. The linguists who advocate for conserving endangered languages have given different reasons to support their claims. It is said that the loss of any language causes the loss of its original ethnic and cultural identities (Bernard, 1992; Hale, 1998).
1 Linguists such as Hayward (1998) when focusing on the endangerment of some
Ethiopian languages remarked that endangered languages of Ethiopia had rare typological phenomena; hence their loss means the total loss of genetic diversity. The loss will highly deprive the entire humanity of its rich knowledge of the early history as well as the historical account of migrations of the speakers of the proto - languages.
Lastly, protecting languages that are in danger of extinction is an important step towards conserving the earth‟s ecosystems (Romaine, 2002).
At present there is an alarming rate of language endangerment than any time in human history. Harrison (2008) for example points out that; the rate at which languages disappear today has no precedence in human history. It is claimed that more than half of today‟s languages are expected to disappear by the end of the 21st century. This is expected to be the greatest linguistic disaster (Romaine, 2002; Harrison, 2008). Statistics show that about 97% of the world‟s people speak almost 4% of the world‟s languages.
Contrary 96% of the world‟s languages are spoken by an estimated 3% of the global population (Bernard, 1996). If one looks at glance on these statistics it can be hypothetically concluded that, most of the world‟s languages are cared for by a very small population.
Africa has a large number of languages. It is estimated that the continent has 2000 or nearly one third of the world‟s linguistic heritage. Grimes (2000) points out that, 37
African languages are on the verge of extinction versus 161 in the Americas. In terms of percentages 0.02% of the languages in Africa are in immediate danger against 1.15% of those of the Americas. From the statistics it can be derived that the state of African indigenous languages is generally health both at present and even in the immediate future.
2 Tanzanian languages including Kibena are also in danger even if the above statistics console Africans that their languages are healthier than those in the Americas, Europe,
Asia, Oceania and the rest of the world. The main factor for language endangerment in
Tanzania is the pressure of shift from Kiswahili to ethnic community languages.
1.2 Background Information about Kibena
Geographically, Kibena is spoken in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania, North East of
Lake Nyasa (Malawi) roughly in Njombe region (Bernader, 2012). According to
Nyagava (1999) the Bena people have inhabited the area since 1200 AD. Kibena is also a minority language in Northern parts of Songea and Kilombero districts. The language is estimated to have 600,000 speakers. It is therefore the 13th largest ethnic community language in the country (Muzale & Rugemalira, 2008; Lewis, 2009). According to
Bernader (2012) Kibena speakers are surrounded by the Wanji and Kinga in the west,
Hehe and Sangu in the north, Ndamba and Ngoni in the east, and Ndendeule, Ngoni and
Pangwa in the south.
3 Map 1: Kibena Speakers and their Neighbours
Source: SIL International 2006 in Mitterhofer, 2013
Linguistically Kibena [Ekibena - ISO bez] belongs to Bantu languages (Bernader, 2012).
Bernader further states that Lewis (2009) classifies Kibena as: Niger - Congo, Atlantic -
Congo, Volta - Congo, Benue - Congo, Bantoid, Southern, Narrow Bantu, Central, G, and
Bena - Kinga (G.60). Lewis adopted the classification by Guthrie (1948) who classifies
Kibena in Zone G, group 60 (G. 63) along with Kisangu (G.61), Kihehe (G.62),
Kipangwa (G.64), Kikinga (G.65), Kiwanji (G.66) and Kikisi (G.67).
4 Moreover, Nurse (1980, 1988) attempted to classify East African Bantu languages. In his classification Kibena was classified in the Southern Highlands branch which comprises of two main groups. The first group is the North - Eastern group comprising of Kibena and Kihehe. The second is the South - Western group, which includes Kiwanji, Kikinga,
Kikisi, Kipangwa and Kimanda. Kibena lexicon shares similarity with Kipangwa [pbr]
(71%), Kihehe [heh] (65%), Kisangu [sbp] (55%), Kikinga [zga] (53%), Kiwanji [wbi]
(51%) and Kikisi [kiz] (47%).
Kibena has different dialects such as Kiilembula, Kilavungi (Kilavagi), Kilupembe,
Kimasakati (Kimasagati), Kimasitu, Kimaswamu, Kimavemba, Kingaveeta, Kinyikolwe,
Kisovi, and Kitwangabita.
5 Table 1: Kibena Dialects According to Different Sources
Nurse Nyagava Hongole (2002) Muhehwa et Levens (accessed
(1979) (1999) al 2009) Ilembula “Lavigi” in the area
around Ikungula and
Ilembula Lupembe Twangabita Twangabita “Twangabita” in the
(Lupembe) Lupembe area
Masakati Masagati “Manga” in the area
around Masagati and
Lulanga Masitu Maswamu Maswaamu Sovi Sovi Vasovi Soovi “Sovi” in the
(Mtwango, Makambako and
Makambako) Ikuna area Kilavagi Mavemba Maveemba Nyikolwe Vanyikolwe Nyikolwe “Vanyikobwe” in the
(Yakobi, Kifanya, area around Taraja Uwemba) and Igominyi Vakilavugi Kilavuungi
(Mdandu, and parts of Imalinyi)
Vangaveta Ngaveeta
(Wanging'ombe, Ilembula, Kidugala)
Source: Mitterhofer, 2013
6 Kibena was chosen to be the centre of this study because its speakers are currently shifting to Kiswahili. This being the case it is also susceptible to endangerment. Besides studies have been conducted on the language on phonology, syntax, lexicon and dialectology, but there are no studies conducted to determine its degree of endangerment especially on its intergenerational transmission.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
Tanzania has more than 120 Ethnic Community Languages (ECLs). These languages were very strong up to the time of independence in 1960s. They were used in every domain of social life when compared to Kiswahili which was very weak by then
(Whiteley, 1969). In addition these languages safeguarded positive attitudes among their speakers to the extent that they were eager to pass them to younger generations hence assuring their vitality. The wind of change came with the declaration of Kiswahili as the national and official language in 1962 (Yoneda, 2010). The use of Kiswahili in informal and official domains such as education, administration, courts of law, and commercial contacts undermined the use of ECLs in the country (Légere, 2006). Studies on the current use of ECLs in Tanzania have revealed the marginalization of ECLs after
Kiswahili has permeated every aspects of life. It is moreover postulated that even the home domain has lost the influence of ECLs in favor of Kiswahili (Mekacha, 1993;
Stegen, 2003; Wedin, 2004; Mkude, 2001 & 2003; Msanjila, 2003; Kahigi, 2004;
Madumulla, 2004; and Rubanza, 2004). ECLs are therefore experiencing the state of endangerment to unprecedented level as the younger speakers abandon them in favour of
Kiswahili. Under these circumstances sociolinguists ought to study the scenario and state of language endangerment in Tanzania very seriously.
7 Surprisingly, there are very few studies conducted in the area of ECLs endangerment with particular focus on intergenerational language transmission parameter, a factor which is essential for determining language vitality and endangerment (UNESCO, 2003).
Therefore there is an urgent need for sociolinguists in Tanzania to devote their time to study the endangerment of these languages especially by looking at their sustainability among the younger generations. This being the case the researcher decided to assess the endangerment of Kibena basing on intergenerational language parameter as one of the efforts to fill this gap. Kibena was chosen for study because it is one of the ECLs which are under great tension because of the increased influence of Kiswahili among its users.
So it was important to conduct this study in Kibena in order to establish its degree of endangerment focusing specifically on the above mentioned criterion. This is because once the endangerment status of the language is known other efforts geared at language maintenance or revitalization such as community sensitization on the need to develop their language and documentation may be taken. Otherwise these languages will slowly die unnoticed depriving Tanzanians and the entire humanity of their linguistic heritage.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
This study was guided by the following objectives:
1.4.1 General Objective
The general objective of the study was to assess Kibena endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
This study was guided by the following specific objectives:
8 i. To assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on its use in various
domains as a means of transmitting it to younger generations.
ii. To assess the endangerment status of Kibena basing on the role of intermarriages
on transmitting the language to younger generations.
iii. To assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on speakers‟ attitudes as a
motivating factor behind transmitting the language to younger generations.
1.5 Research Questions
The study was made possible through the use of the following questions:
i. What is the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on its use in various domains
as a means of transmitting it to younger generations?
ii. What is the endangerment status of Kibena basing on the role of intermarriages
on transmitting the language to younger generations?
iii. What is the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on speakers‟ attitudes as a
motivating factor behind transmitting the language to younger generations?
1.6 Significance of the Study
The study is very useful in the field of sociolinguistics and to the respective community in different ways. First the study has revealed the status of Kibena in terms of endangerment. It has been a reminder for linguists who are interested in studying ethnic community language endangerment in Tanzania to take appropriate measures for language planning and conservation. Second it has paved the way for further language endangerment researches in Tanzania since the studies on this area are still undeveloped.
9 Third, it motivates sociolinguists in Tanzania and beyond to document Kibena and other ethnic community languages. Finally, it enlightens the community on the need to rescue their language from endangerment by transmitting it to younger generations.
1.7 Definitions of Key Terms
This covers the definitions of concepts which are very important to this study as follows:
Language death refers to the state of language extinction in the sense that the
language is no longer used as a means of communication or socialization (Batibo,
2005).
Language shift is interpreted as situations where by speakers abandon their
language either willingly or under pressure in favor of another language, which is
used for wider communication (Batibo, 2005).
Language endangerment, the language is considered endangered when its
speakers cease to use it, use it in an increasingly reduced number of
communicative domains, and also cease to pass it to the next generation
(UNESCO, 2003).
Language maintenance is the situation where a language ensures its vitality even
when it is under pressure of giving up from the dominant or language of wider
communication (Batibo, 2005).
Intergenerational language transmission refers to the process where parents
teach their children their mother tongue in order to maintain its vitality amidst the
pressure from the dominant language (Batibo, 2005).
10 1.8 Chapter Summary
Throughout this chapter various issues were presented. The researcher presented the background information on language endangerment. Then he demonstrated the background information on Kibena both geographically and linguistically. Further the three objectives of the study and their related questions were presented. The objectives and study questions aimed at assessing the endangerment of Kibena basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter. The three variables which were suggested to be used in enhancing the study were the domains in which Kibena is spoken, role of intermarried couples and the Kibena speakers‟ attitudes towards their language. Further the statement of the problem, significance of the study and key terms were defined to make the study clear.
11 CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This section is about the theoretical framework which was important for guiding the study. Moreover the section comprises of literature review. The literature review part has presented relevant information to the study as reviewed from various scholarly works.
2.1 Theoretical Framework
This study on the assessment of Kibena endangerment based on intergenerational language transmission parameter was guided by the UNESCO (2003), Language Vitality and Endangerment Assessment Guideline (LVEAG) as described below:
2.1.1 Language Vitality and Endangerment Assessment Guidelines (LVEAG)
The UNESCO ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages (2003) came up with a framework for assessing the vitality and endangerment of languages. The framework was referred to as the Language Vitality and Endangerment Assessment Guideline (LVEAG).
The LVEAG document has a total of nine factors which are considered for evaluating language vitality and endangerment.
The nine factors are grouped into vitality factors, language attitude factors, and urgency for documentation factors. The specific nine factors are (1) intergenerational language transmission, (2) absolute number of speakers, (3) proportion of speakers within a total population, (4) shift in domains of language use, (5) response to new domains and media,
(6) availability of materials for language education and literacy, (7) governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, (8) community members‟ attitudes towards
12 their own language, and (9) type and quality of documentation.
For the purpose of this study the researcher used three factors which he considered relevant to illuminate this study. The main factor which is also the chief variable for determining the study was factor number (1) the intergenerational language transmission.
But this factor necessarily demanded the focus of the other two factors in order to achieve the objectives of this study. The two helping factors are factor number (4) shift in domains of language use, and factor number (8) community members‟ attitudes towards their own language. The following was the modus operandi of the three mentioned factors in assessing the endangerment of Kibena especially when focusing on its intergenerational transmission.
Factor 1: Intergenerational Language Transmission
The most commonly used factor in evaluating the vitality of a language is whether or not it is being transmitted from one generation to the next (Fishman, 1991). Endangerment is ranked on a continuum from stability to extinction. Even “safe” languages do not have any guarantee of vitality. This is because at any time speakers may cease to pass on their language to the next generation. Six degrees of endangerment may be distinguished with regards to Intergenerational Language Transmission as shown on table 2 below:
13 Table 2: Assessing Language Endangerment Basing on
Intergenerational Language Transmission
Degree of Grade Speaker
Endangerment Population Safe 5 The language is
used by all age groups, including children. Unsafe 4 The language is
used by some children in all domains; it is used by all children in limited domains. Definitively 3 The language is
Endangered used mostly by the parental generation and upwards. Severely 2 The language is
Endangered used mostly by the grand parental generation and upwards. Critically 1 The language is
Endangered known to very few speakers, of great – grand parental generation. Extinct 0 There is no speaker
left.
Source: UNESCO, 2003
14 Factor 4: Shift in Domains of Language Use
According to UNESCO (2003) domains of language use help to indicate if the language is transmitted to the younger generations or not. Hence the researcher using this fact got relevant information on the intergenerational language transmission therefore being able to determine the endangerment status of
Kibena. UNESCO (ibid) insists that, where and with whom a language is used and the range of topics speakers can address by using the language has a direct effect on the transmission to the next generation. Therefore, the degrees of language endangerment using this factor are indicated on table 3 below:
15 Table 3: Assessing Language Endangerment Basing on Domains of
Language Use
Degree of Grade Domains and Endangerment Functions Universal Use 5 The language is used in all domains and for all functions.
Multilingual 4 Two or more Parity languages may be used in most social domains and for most functions; the ancestral language usually is rare in public domain. Dwindling 3 The ancestral Domains language is used in home domains and for many functions, but the dominant language begins to penetrate home domains. Limited or 2 The language is used Formal Domains in limited social domains and for several functions. Highly Limited 1 The language is used Domains only in very restricted domains and for a very few functions. Extinct 0 The language is not used in any domains at all.
Source: UNESCO, 2003
16 Factor 8: Community Members’ Attitudes towards their own Language
UNESCO (2003) emphasized that members of the community are not usually neutral towards their own language. They may see it as essential to their community and identity hence promoting it. They may decide to use without promoting it, they may also be ashamed of it consequently jeopardizing its transmission. Furthermore they intentionally avoid using it in order to stop transmitting it to the younger generations therefore denying its vitality, the practice which widens its scope of endangerment. The negative attitudes of language community members come from perceiving their language as an obstacle to economic mobility and integration in the mainstream society. The community attitudes towards their own language are assessed basing on the scale suggested on table
4 below:
17 Table 4: Assessing Language Endangerment Basing on
Community Members’ Attitudes towards their
Language
Grade Community members’ attitudes towards their language 5 All members value their
language and wish to see it promoted. 4 Most members support language
maintenance. 3 Many members support language
maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss. 2 Some members support language
maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss. 1 Only few members support
language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss. 0 No one cares if the language is
lost; all prefer to use a dominant language.
Source: UNESCO, 2013
18 2.2 Literature Review
This subsection on literature review focuses on scholarly works which are relevant to the study. It discusses the concept of language endangerment, language death and endangerment in the ancient world, and language endangerment in the contemporary world, language endangerment in Africa, endangered language groups and families in
Africa and language endangerment in East Africa. Other issues reflected in this part are such as; intergenerational language transmission and language endangerment, the relationship between intergenerational language transmissions, mixed language marriages and language endangerment. It also deals with domains of language use, language speakers‟ attitudes and intergenerational language transmission. The literature review part ends up with a conclusion.
2.2.1 The Concept of Language Endangerment
Krauss (2007) says the language is endangered if it is not transmitted to younger generations. Krauss further projects that if children will not speak in a language in 100 years, then such language is endangered. According to UNESCO (2003) the language is said to be endangered when it is on the path towards extinction. Batibo (2005) says language endangerment is the situation when the language is threatened by extinction.
The definition of Batibo directly explains the concept of language endangerment.
2.2.2 Language Death and Endangerment in the Ancient World
The historical account provides evidences of the presence of language endangerment and death in the ancient world. Language endangerment was caused by contact among different peoples in the antiquity. These contacts resulted from political, economical, military and cultural interactions. The well known area of linguistic deaths in the ancient world is Asia Minor (Janse, 2002). The indigenous languages of Asia Minor became
19 extinct under the pressure of Hellenization, Hatti, Hurian, Hittite and other Anatolian languages. Other languages which died because of the pressure from the mentioned languages were Phrygian, Galatian, Gothic, and a number of other languages known by names only such as Mysian, Lycaonian, Catalonian, Cilician, Bagdaonian and
Cappadocian.
The prestige of a politically and culturally superior lingua franca in the Persian Empire caused many people to lose both their languages and names. The case of Greek language in Asia Minor shows the fact that socio - economic and political factors were not the only causes of language death (Dressler, 1988). Neither the Persians nor the Romans were socio - economically and politically inferior to Greeks, yet both of them adapted Greek language and culture for communication in Asia Minor. In this respect it is particularly interesting to note that the Persians chose the Aramaic language for communication in other parts of the empire. But the Romans used Latin in western provinces.
The imposition of Greek in the Eastern Ancient World and Latin in the western counterpart did not lead to abrupt language death. Most if not all of the indigenous languages went through an intermediate stage of bilingualism (Swain et al, 2002). The classic example is Thucydides bilingual Carian. Bilingualism inevitably led to borrowing. According to Campbell (1994) language death is also catalyzed by extreme cases of borrowing from another language. There are however cases where bilingualism does not lead to language death in a strict sense. But the subordinate language is maintained and subjected to what Thomason and Kaufman (1988) call heavy borrowing.
In its most extreme form the linguistic result of heavy borrowing is what Thomason calls a contact language, which is defined as any new language that arises in a cultural situation identified by the fact that its lexicon and grammatical structures cannot be
20 traced back primarily to the same source language (Thomason, 2001). Contact languages are also called mixed languages (ibid). It is said that Carian language had a mixture of many Greek words. This linguistic situation leads to the conclusion that the original languages did not die but they were transformed into new languages.
In short that is how language endangerment happened in the antiquity. The historical account of language death in the ancient world is an evidence that language endangerment is not a new phenomenon besides its study being developed recently.
2.2.3 Language Endangerment in the Contemporary World
The general global situation of minority languages is not healthy. This means that many languages which are not used for wider communication are endangered. According to
Kraus (1992) there is an estimated loss of between 50% and 90% of the world‟s linguistic diversity. Currently it is estimated that there are between 6000 and 7000 languages in the world (Crystal, 2000; Nettle and Romaine, 2002 & Harrison, 2008). Despite having such a large number of languages still many of them are on danger of extinction. This is evidenced by Harrison (2008) who says the rate at which languages disappear in the world today has no precedence in human history. Linguists such as Nettle & Romaine
(2002) claim that more than half of the today‟s languages are expected to disappear by the end of the 21st century. In fact this lose will deprive the world of its linguistic diversity.
2.2.4 The Situation of Language Endangerment in Africa
Linguists have provided some statistics on language endangerment in Africa. Sommer
(1989) shows that 116 languages in Africa are highly endangered which is 4.6% of all
African languages and 54 languages are extinct which is 2.2% of all languages in Africa.
21 Researches done in the area of language endangerment in African continent have demonstrated that the African situation is different from that in the Americas and
Australia, where endangered languages are associated with indigenous people who belong to the lower class of the society. However this is not the case in Africa. A number of African languages are in a stronger socio - political situation than they were 20 years ago. These languages have gained ground against the European official languages.
Despite the better position of African languages in resisting endangerment, researches still reveal incidences of endangered languages in different parts of Africa.
Mous (2001) has indicated five situational patterns that perpetuate language endangerment and death in Africa. The patterns operate contextually in different parts of
Africa. These are; shift to the non - colonial official and national languages; shift to the language of wider communication often as a consequence of settlement in the urban centers; shift to the dominant regional language; shift as a result of giving up traditional economy that is central to the identity of the group, and vocabulary loss without shift. In addition to this there is a rare case of language death as a consequence of extinction of the people due to genocide as what is happening to various Kordofanian languages in the
Nuba Mountains in Sudan.
. There are examples of African official and national languages that replace other African indigenous languages which are; Amharic, Somali, and Kiswahili. In Ethiopia and in the
Horn of Africa region at large, Amharic has been dominant official language for centuries and therefore has a long time influence on several smaller central Cushitic languages which have died out or are on the verge of extinction. Appleyard (1998) and Zelealem
(1998) demonstrate the way two central Cushitic languages; Qwarenya and K‟emant have shifted to Amharic. The dominance of Amharic is directly associated with the
22 dominance of Amhara rulers and the strength of the Ethiopian Coptic Church which uses the language for its liturgical celebrations and other church official matters.
Somali is the national language of Somalia; it is used along with other few languages which are spoken in non - official social domains. One of these smaller languages is the
Kiswahili dialect of Chimwiini that has been under pressure of Somali over centuries and is losing its ground to Somali. Moreover Kiswahili is replacing several local languages in
Tanzania and other parts of East Africa. The process of Kiswahili replacing other
Tanzanian languages involves several stages of bilingualism, which gradually topples other African indigenous languages and eventually leading to restricted competence in the original mother tongue (Batibo, 1992). In particular people moving to the urban centers tend to switch to Kiswahili and no longer use their mother tongue. Some of the
Bantu languages near Dar es Salaam, for example Zaramo and Bondei are under strong influence of Kiswahili. Légere (1992) illustrates how Kiswahili penetrates every aspect of Bondei, even though Bondei is demographically healthy with over 200,000 people and is growing fast.
Amharic, Somali, and Kiswahili are official languages and therefore have extra prestige.
But these are not the only languages of wider communication that replace other African languages. The large replacing languages do not need the status of national or official languages to persuade people to give up their mother tongue in their favor. Bamana
(Bambara) or Jula in Burkinafaso; Hausa in Northern Nigeria and Niger; Lingala in
Congo, and Wolof in Senegal are replacing many languages in the respective regions of
Africa.
Bamana (Bambara) is de facto the national language of Mali; it is replacing smaller
23 languages such as Kakolo (Sommer, 1992). Jula is becoming more and more dominant in
Southern Burkinafaso. The language has become a threat to several smaller Mande, Gur languages, and one Kru language (Seme). Some of these Gur languages (Tyefo and
Viemo) are crucial in terms of diversity since they constitute primary branches of Gur.
Another most common threat to languages in Africa is the shift to dominant regional languages. The dominant regional languages do not need to be numerically very strong, consider the shift of Ongota to Ts‟amakko (Sava). Other examples are the gradual shift of
Logba (Togo Mountain language) to Ewe (Kwa) in Ghana, the shift of Bayso (Cushitic) to Wolayta (Omotic) and Oromo (Cushitic) (Brenzinger, 2001). The final reference is the shift of Gweno in the Pare Mountains to Chasu in Kilimanjaro Tanzania (Winter, 1992 &
Mreta, 2000).
In Kenya some languages are said to be endangered and threatened of extinction. They include Sengwer, Elmolo, Okiek (Ogiek) and Suba. The speakers of these languages gradually tend to shift to dominant neighbouring languages. Examples are Sengwer and
Okiek tend to use Nandi and Kipsigis (Kalenjin dialects), while Elmolo speakers shift to
Turkana. Moreover, Suba speakers use Dholuo. Hence these small languages are threatened of extinction.
Language shift can also be the result of a change in the social situation when language is felt to belong to a specific socio - economic role. An example is the case of the Aasax, a
Southern Cushitic language spoken by hunter - gatherers among Maasai while giving up hunting for cattle keeping and thus becoming Maasai (Winter 1979). It is emphasized by
Mous (2001) that loss of linguistic diversity is not always identical to language death.
There is also a common process which is the loss of the lexicon. Many Bantu languages
24 of Tanzania, for example Bowe (Bantu F34), gradually replace non - basic vocabulary with Kiswahili words. This is because Kiswahili is used in formal education. It is very important to realize that the total loss of certain types of languages result in the disappearance of certain types of contact situations and of special languages. Secret languages, initiation languages, languages of occupational castes and of the people who are dependent on others in a client situation are generally in danger. An example is the loss of the languages of the blacksmiths and lather workers among the Mande in West
Africa (Kastenholz, 1998).
Some endangered Bantu languages are of special interest due to the fact that they can provide an insight into the earlier times historical language contact phenomena. For example, the study of the displaced Bantu languages such as Ngoni from South Africa to
Tanzania and the Bantu Mashungulu from Tanzania to Somalia is of special and historical interest because they show an insight into gradual language adaptation (Mous,
2001).
2.2.5 Endangered Language Groups and Families in Africa
Apart from the endangerment of individual languages due to various reasons already discussed. There are certain linguistic groups and families which are also found to be in danger of death and finally extinction. Some of them will be immediately discussed.
Mous (2001) listed the following language groups and families in Africa as being endangered:
Kwa is a group of languages belonging to Niger Congo (NC) family. This group comprises of 78 languages which are spoken in the southern half of Ivory Coast, Ghana,
Togo and Benin. It is said that many studies have been going on especially on syntax of
25 the Gbe and Akan clusters. The cluster of some 15 languages which were previously classified as Togo - remnants is endangered. Ega is spoken in Ivory Coast and occupies a special position in Kwa group, the language is highly divergent and surrounded by Kru speakers, the factor which exposes it to higher possibilities of endangerment. The claim for endangerment of this language is testified by studies conducted by
Volkswagenstiftung, the German project on endangered languages.
Mande is a family of 58 languages spoken in all West African countries. It has some ten languages which are endangered. The Nilotic Saharan (NS) family with 60 languages has several endangered member languages. Among them are Ongamo, Okiek, Akiek, Omotik and others. Another is Omotic an Afro - Asiatic language group comprising of 28 languages, half of its member languages have less than 10,000 speakers therefore considered endangered. Saharan is a group of language belonging to Nilo - Saharan languages (NS). This group comprises of 6 languages (Kanuri, Kanembu, Teda, Daza,
Zaghawa and Berti) spoken in the boarder of Niger and Chad is also endangered.
Semitic is an Afro - Asiatic (AA) language group. This group comprises of Arabic and its dialects and other southern Semitic languages (Amharic, Tigre, Tigrinya and Guruge) spoken in Ethiopia and Eritrea. The African Semitic languages belonging to this group are not endangered with the exception of Gafat.
Ubangi is also one of the groups belonging to the Niger - Congo family (NC). This group comprises of 71 languages spoken in the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Congo
Brazzaville, Congo (DRC) and Sudan. The larger languages belonging to this group are
Sango, Gbaya, Ngbandi, Banda, and Zande. More than 20 languages in this group have fewer than 10, 000 speakers hence considered endangered.
26 2.2.6 Language Endangerment in East Africa
Batibo (2005) attempted to provide a list of endangered languages in East Africa as part of language endangerment situation throughout Africa. So Batibo has provided lists of endangered and extinct languages in three East African countries as follows:
Language endangerment in Uganda: Batibo (2005) has stated that there are two major dominant linguistic areas in Uganda. Luganda is spoken as the dominant language in the south, where as Kiswahili is spoken as second language throughout the country particularly in urban centers. Regarding language endangerment, Batibo says there are only two highly endangered languages, which are Ik (Ngulak) and Soo (So, Tepes). The suggested extinct or nearly extinct languages are; Nyang‟i, (Nyangeya, Nyangia), Singa
(Lusinga), Kooki, and Napore.
Language endangerment in Kenya: The country is said to have 56 languages; these statistics are according to Batibo (2005). According to Batibo (ibid), English is the official language and Kiswahili is the national language. The other major regional dominant languages are Gikuyu spoken in the central highlands, Luo around Lake
Victoria in the west, Kikamba in the east and Luyia in the extreme west. Batibo says the highly endangered languages are; Boni, Dahalo, Burji (Bambala), Daasanach, Digo,
Konkani (Goanese), Malakote (Ilwana), Nubi (Kinubi), Sagalla (Teri), Sanye and Suba, also Chifundi and Vumba (Kiswahili dialects). The extinct or nearly extinct languages are
Elmolo (El Molo), Okiek (Akiek, Ndorobo), Yaaku (Mukodogo, Ndorobo), Omotik
(Laamot, Ndorobo) and Kore. Others are Bong‟om, Degere, Kinare, Lorkoti, Segeju,
Sogoo and Ware (Batibo, 2005).
Language endangerment in Tanzania: Batibo (ibid) says in Tanzania, Kiswahili is used as
27 the national and official dominant language spoken by over 90% of its population as either the mother tongue or second language. English is used as the second official language in the country. Apart from English and Kiswahili, there is also Kisukuma which is a regional dominant language, spoken in the northern part of the country by more than
12.5% of the population.
Batibo (2005) further says the highly endangered languages in Tanzania are; Daiso
(Dhaiso), Gweno (Kigweno), Hadza (Hadzapi, Kitindiga), Akie (Ndorobo, Kisankara),
Kwavi (Parakuyo), Bondei, Doe, Burunge, Gorowa, Holoholo, Ikizu, Ikoma, Isanzu, Jiji,
Kabwa and Kami. Other highly endangered languages in Tanzania are Kisi, Makwe,
Manda, Mbungwe, Segeju (Sageju), Nghwele, Pimbwe, Rungwe, Suba, Alagwa (Wasi,
Asi), Vidunda, Vinza, Sinza, Surwa, Sweta, Wanda and Zalamo (Zaramo). Batibo has pointed out the extinct or nearly extinct languages in Tanzania as follows; Aasax (Asax,
Asak), Ongamo (Ngasa), Kikae (Old Kimakunduchi), Kwa‟dza, Degere, Yeke, Hamba,
Bahi, and Ware.
It is said that the rate of language endangerment and extinction in Tanzania is caused by the dominance of Kiswahili which is both official and national language (Légere, 1992).
The pressure and power of Kiswahili inflicts a heavy burden which other ethnic community languages in the country cannot withstand, leading to their endangerment.
Apart from the fact that Kiswahili is the main cause of endangerment of ethnic community languages in Tanzania, yet in the list of endangerment many languages in
Tanzania including Kibena are not shown. This shortcoming indicated the need to study the endangerment of Kibena especially on its intergenerational transmission in order to know its endangerment status.
28 2.2.7 Intergenerational Language Transmission and Language Endangerment
Intergenerational language transmission was an important factor in this study because it was used to check if Kibena was endangered or had a long way of maintenance. This being the case, it was important to have a thorough discussion on research findings that focus on how intergenerational language transmission caused endangerment or maintenance of some researched minority and indigenous language from different parts of the world.
Different scholars supported the fact that intergenerational language transmission is very vital in assuring language maintenance and its vitality. This is supported by Fishman
(1991: 113) when he says without intergenerational mother tongue transmission … no language maintenance is possible. Chessa (2011), comments that, the attention on language transmission has been devoted to family language transmission, without much emphasis on the paradigms of both language shift and death. It is also pointed out by
Chessa that there are very few scholars who have used most of their time to investigate on language shift and death by specifically looking at the interactions between parents and children, especially when focusing on instances of indigenous or minority groups which are characterized by conflicting forces of bilingualism.
Chessa (2011) further argues that there is little attention which has been given to the study of the motivations and reasons which are behind the parental decision to speak the dominant language to their children. There is also shortage of information on the factors which determine parental decision to speak their language to children (Morris and Jones,
2007).
The studies indicate that the situation is not satisfying even if there are some deliberate
29 efforts to address the malice of deliberate non - transmission of the mother tongue to children. This appeal has been repeated so frequently in communities where a threatened minority language is a language of communication among parental and grand parental generations (Dorian, 1986). However it has to be noted that, some of the studies specifically those done on language displacement such as the ones done by Denison
(1971); Huffines (1980); Shahidi (2008) and Timm (1980) have analyzed intergenerational language transmission as an important aspect in the language shift process. Timm (1980) for example, in her account of the sociolinguistic situation of
Breton language in France, gave a reasonable attention to the difference of language use between different generations. She noted that Breton was still frequently spoken in families which constituted elderly members whose age was beyond forty. It was demonstrated that parents in their forties, however, may speak Breton to one another occasionally. However they speak French in the entire conversation, which involves parent - child interactions. The children were noted to understand some Breton but they were not able to function in it. Meanwhile parents in their thirties or younger tend to speak French almost entirely to each other and when they talk to their children. It was observed that these younger parents tend to speak at least little Breton when talking to their parents.
Further studies that related to the intergenerational transmission and language endangerment were also conducted in the United States. Huffines (1980) reports the facts on intergenerational transmission by giving the clear evidence of language shift among the non - plain Pennsylvanian German community. Statistics indicates that out of 107 informants, only 12 (11%) of parents were reported to be linguistically capable of passing
Pennsylvanian - German on to their children, and there were no informants who reported to have Pennsylvanian - German speaking grand children. From the study it was revealed
30 that parents frequently spoke to each other in Pennsylvania German, and this was also done by grandparents to their children in English.
Other studies concerning intergenerational language transmission and language endangerment were conducted in Iran. Shahidi (2008) for instance, investigated the shift of Manzandarani, a minority language spoken in the northern part of the country. The study focused on family language transmission. The study of language shift of
Manzandarani among other things investigated on speakers‟ attitudes towards
Manzandarani and Persian (the dominant language in the country), and intergenerational transmission. The study findings reported that language used in interactions between parents and children was mainly Persian. However the important question on why this happened had not been empirically answered (Chessa, 2011).
Josserand (2003) investigated on language contact among these languages; Italian,
French, and Franco Provencal. The same scholar had studied incidences of language conflict in the Aosta Valley region in the North West parts of Italy, putting considerable emphasis on language transmission. His major devotion was to establish a detailed account of language use within the family domain. Apart from focusing on factors that catalyze the language endangerment, the explanations that Josserand offers seem to be mostly the result of theoretical speculation than an outcome of an in - depth study.
Studies on intergenerational language transmission and its relationship to language endangerment were also conducted in Catalan. Torres (2007) analyzed the family language use and intergenerational language transmission in particular. He starts from the assumption that the intergenerational transmission of Catalan is a crucial aspect of both the present and the future of the language. He explains this fact through the use of the formula, according to which the intensity of language shift or regression is accounted for.
31 Although the study is considered as the most detailed one carried out to the moment in the entire area where Catalan is spoken, however the reasons behind parental linguistic choice were not carefully analyzed.
Although as many times repeated, sociolinguistics lacks specific studies on intergenerational language transmission within the paradigm of language shift. There are quite a few interesting peculiarities which can be found, a large number of which were sociolinguistic analyses of both Welsh and Catalan; some of them particularly were concerned with mixed language marriages. Some of these analyses were based on large scale quantitative studies, census in particular (example; Jones, 1998 & 2009; Robinson,
1989; Williams, 1987). Some others in contrast were considered as more qualitative, small scale in - depth investigations such as those done by Edwards and Newcombe
(2005a & 2005 b); Harrison et al. (1981); Lyon (1986); Morris and Jones (2007) and
Sallabank (2007).
Sallabank (2007) collected data on the extent to which Guernsey language is used and passed on to the next generation. She also tried to investigate the reasons behind the cessation of intergenerational transmission of the Guetnesiais which is a variety of the
Norman French. On the other hand Harrison et al. (1981) committed themselves to the study which was intended to get an understanding of the mechanisms that regulate intergenerational language transmission in Western Europe. It was noted that, since 1970s bilingual mothers in Wales predominantly raised their children in English. They had therefore intended to investigate the root cause behind the practice.
The study by Harrison et al. (1981) was possible by eliciting information on; the mothers‟ use of Welsh and their attitude towards it; the mothers‟ ideas about child rearing and
32 actual experience of it; and their children‟s exposure to Welsh and English. These scholars were also interested in aspects such as mothers‟ perceptions of what Welsh speaking offers and involvement of their families in their communities, and mothers‟ expectations for their children, for example their cognitive development and social skills.
Another interesting area where Harrison et al. (1981) investigated was the relationship between parents‟ attitudes towards the minority language and its actual use in the interactions with their children. The study has evidenced that bilingual mothers (Welsh and English) of monolingual (English) children share the positive attitudes towards the
Welsh language, which are held by mothers of bilingual children, with only few exceptions. This phenomenon seems to be quite common within minority languages which are undergoing process of language shift, where by parents show some attachment to their ancestral language but use the dominant language in their interactions with their children. It is however paradoxical as to why bilingual parents who express some loyalty to minority language never the less rear their children in the dominant language.
Further studies have been conducted regarding the intergenerational language transmission as related to language shift which signals endangerment of the respective languages. For example, a comparative study conducted by Perta (2004) on the analysis of the linguistic vitality of the two minorities Albanian speaking community of Chieuti and the Franco - Provencal speaking community of Chieuti. In the case of Chieuti, there emerged a sociolinguistic situation characterized by a process of language shift in which the older the speakers, the competence in local Albanian they were. It was also noted that
Arberesh (the way Italian - Albanian is referred to) is scarcely used in all the domains which were analyzed. The domains were; family, school, religion, and work.
33 From the study the reason for language shift in Chieuti seems to be the low prestige associated with Arberesh. According to 66% of the speakers, it is not worth to pass this local language on to the new generation. According to the informants of the study, the language is not useful and hence not needed, that is the reason why they suggested that the language did not deserve the credit of being transmitted to the new generation.
Moreover, the majority of the speakers (52%) commented that what they speak is a dialect, and only 48% declared that they spoke Albanian. However, the latter seem to agree that their linguistic variety is only a dialect of Albanian that used to be spoken in the community in the past. All in all, the language variety they speak is perceived as a valueless dialect associated with a backward society and for that matter they tend to abandon it in the interactions with their children.
The situation of Franco - Provencal in Faeto on the other hand, seems to be quite different, as a high degree of vitality has been observed in this language. A great percent of people who were interviewed (98%) declared that they are actively competent in their local language and there does not seem to be a significant correlation between language use and socio - demographic variables such as age. One of the main differences between the two communities that is Chieuti and Faeto is that in Faeto the speakers clearly associate their linguistic variety with a language not a dialect as in Chieuti. They are very proud of being part of their language community and this seems to be due to the fact that they tend to associate (mistakenly) Franco - Provencal with the French people and the
French language. Accordingly all the people interviewed expressed the will to pass the local language on to their children.
34 2.2.8 The Relationship between Intergenerational Language Transmission, Mixed
Language Marriages and Language Endangerment
Mixed language marriages are those which involve couples with two different language backgrounds. When this practice happens it is said to have an impact on language transmission among the children raised in those families. If it happens that there is an impediment on the mother tongues spoken by the intermarried couples then language endangerment tends to prevail. It is however contended that it is not always the case that exogamous marriages have to lead to intergenerational language cut - off and hence culminating into language endangerment.
From various research experiences there are other factors which work along with exogamous marriages in order to lead into language endangerment. Chessa (2011) has a view that mixed language marriages have an impact on intergenerational mother tongue cut - off especially of the minority languages. The reason behind his claim is the fact that some couples tend to be familiar with the dominant languages in the locality. This being the case they choose to teach their siblings the dominant language. Then the minority language in question becomes endangered. The fact was even supported by other linguists such as Dopke (1992) who says parents from different linguistic backgrounds often end up speaking the dominant language. This scenario affects the interactions within the family where siblings are not taught the languages of their parents. Having this outlook Dopke suggests that conscious efforts have to be taken to adopt the “one parent, one language strategy”. The strategy is said to help parents to teach children their respective mother tongues. This practice ensures intergenerational minority language continuum hence saving it from endangerment.
Scholars still testify that many mixed marriage families are not accompanied by language
35 maintenance. This happens when the home domains are dominated by the majority or dominant languages (Romaine, 1995). Homes (2008) gives an account of exogamous marriages in Australia on the case when German - speaking man marries an English speaking Australian woman, English is mostly adapted as the language of the home.
Therefore it becomes the major language which governs parent - child interactions. In the case of Australia it is seen that German is ignored to be transmitted to children in favor of
English.
Linguists also provide a similar case in Oklahoma. Holmes (2008) provides a scenario of a Cherokee speaker who married outside their community. The children in this family used English instead of Cherokee; the mother tongue of one of their parents. The same situation was witnessed in Wales in the past decades where by mixed marriages were characterized by high rate of English transmission among mixed Welsh and English families (Williams, 1987). Chessa (2011) provides an account of the Alghero community.
Chessa says, up to recent time, couples in which one partner was a Sardinian speaker and the other was a Catalan speaker, usually communicated using Catalan since
Sardinian was the minority language with low prestige where as Catalan was the dominant language with high prestige. Romaine (1995) further remarks that where mixed language marriages exist, the minority language endangerment is highest.
Further scenarios from different parts of the world still prove that mixed language families have a direct impact on minority language loss. The matter is said to be so contextual that, it depends on the nature of the community and other extraneous factors.
In some Catalan speaking regions there seems to be an increasing tendency of speakers to adapt Catalan (the minority language) instead of functioning in Spanish which is the dominant language with a long time established status (Chessa, 2011). In some other
36 communities such as Alghero the situation contradicts that of the former where by the majority language prevails over Catalan (Montoya, 1996). In Wales, Jones (2009) noted that the rate of use of Welsh within families are highest where both parents are welsh speakers. He also adds that Welsh speaking lone parents have high rates of use of the language with their children than parents in the mixed language families.
Therefore various studies conducted to investigate the role of mixed language marriages in transmitting the minority or indigenous languages so as to rescue them from endangerment, have strongly affirmed that such types of marriages contribute to the intergenerational language transmission cut - off leading to endangerment.
In Tanzanian context the scenario is more or less the same. In our time where by intermarriages are common, couples tend to use Kiswahili which is dominant in Tanzania at the expense of their mother tongues. The study conducted by Strom (2009) on
Kindengereko endangerment in Tanzania revealed that Ndengereko intermarriages with other coastal people such as Zaramo, Matumbi, Ngindo, Makonde, and Pogoro was also the factor for Kindengereko endangerment since communication in such families was dominated by Kiswahili. In this study the researcher investigated the impact of intermarriages on Kibena endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter. The result of this study signals the same trend.
2.2.9 Domains of Language Use, Language Speakers’ Attitudes and
Intergenerational Language Transmission
UNESCO (2003) document on sociolinguistic vitality has shown that in order to assess the endangerment of a language there are important factors to focus. Some of these are the number of the speakers of the language, the intergenerational language transmission,
37 the attitudes of the speakers to their language, the domains in which the language is used and others. Since this study has intergenerational language transmission as the main variable which is intended to determine Kibena endangerment, it is important to examine some factors which help to accomplish the objectives of the study. The factors are the domains in which Kibena is used and the speakers attitude towards it.
The minority language speakers‟ attitudes to their language are said to motivate or discourage intergenerational language transmission among its younger generations. If there are positive attitudes then the language is likely to be transmitted to children leading to its maintenance. But where speakers have negative attitude to their language then it is likely to be endangered through intergenerational transmission cut - off. The study conducted by Strom (2009) on Kindengereko in the southern coastal area of
Tanzania shows that the speakers of this language are defeated by the status of Kiswahili.
This defeat led them to consider their language inferior and therefore developing negative attitude towards it. The outcome has been the fact that the younger generations choose to use Kiswahili affecting intergenerational transmission of the language.
Domains of language use refer to the venues in which a language is used in the society.
Fishman (1972) came up with five domains in which the language is used. The domains according to Fishman are families, friends, education, religion, work and the media.
The family is a very important domain of language use. Romaine (1995) clearly states that language loss (endangerment) starts with it being abandoned in the family. Once the family domain is affected the natural intergenerational language transmission is also interrupted. Fishman (1965) pointed out that in many studies of multilingual behavior, the family domain has demonstrated to be very important in ensuring language
38 maintenance. This fact is supported by Cleyne and Kipp (1999) who say that home is a key element in language maintenance. They further add that if the language is not maintained at home, then it cannot be maintained elsewhere.
The education or school domain is considered to be one of the important domains that are effective for facilitating language transmission among the younger generations. The education domain reflects the status, functions, and vitality of a language. This domain is said to affect language transmission and therefore leading to endangerment (Romaine,
1995). The study by Strom (2009) on Kindengereko endangerment indicates that schooling has a positive role of transmitting Kiswahili among Ndengereko children at the expense of their mother tongue. This practice has rendered Kindengereko to be one of the endangered ECLs in Tanzania. Therefore education domain is very crucial for transmitting languages to children.
The domain of religion is the one in which language is used for religious rites and activities (Romaine, 1995). It includes divine or ancestral worship and transmitting or preserving sacred scripture of the respective religion. This domain is also very important in ensuring language vitality. The vibrant African languages such as Amharic in Ethiopia and classic Arabic are strong in terms of status and vitality because of being used in religion. The Ndengereko in Tanzania are mostly Muslim and also the majority of ethnic groups along the Tanzanian coast are Muslims who identify themselves with Swahili culture. This situation causes Ndengereko people to use Kiswahili with the intention of cultural inclusion (Middleton, 1992). This tendency develops Kiswahili at the expense of
Kindengereko.
The media domain reflects language use in news papers, radios, television programs and
39 other forms of mass communication. Romaine (1995), advocates that the media exert great influence on language transmission. It is true that mass media play an important role in preserving the minority languages. The language used in the media attracts attention from many people and inculcates prestige of the language. Therefore, if the language is used in the media there is a tendency of developing the interest of its speakers to learn it.
The work and administration domain is one of the five domains which Fishman (1972) suggested. He argues that if the language is constantly used in work places it is likely to be transmitted to the younger generations because of the socio - economic significance and prestige it acquires.
The researcher‟s consideration on the sociolinguistic setting of the Bena people led him to use the ten (10) domains, some of them being those suggested by Fishman (ibid) and others being contextually relevant to the study. The study focused the home, traditional rituals, religion, agriculture, marriage ceremonies, burial ceremonies, shops, markets, monthly open markets and hospital domains.
2.3 Chapter Summary
The chapter has dealt with the UNESCO (2003) language vitality and endangerment assessment guideline (LVEAG) which is the theoretical frame work guiding the conduct of this study. The theory was used to assess the findings of the study leading to its overall conclusion. There was also an in - depth treatment of scholarly works about the topic.
The overall issues related to language endangerment were discussed in relation to study objectives and its variables.
40 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This section is mainly about research methodology which categorically had to do with the modus operandi for carrying out the entire research process. The research methodology component has the following themes; research design, area of study and study population, sample size and sample selection. Others are data collection methods, research instruments, data analysis, research ethics, and research validity and reliability.
3.1 Research Design
This study applied a mixed research design; this means that it used both quantitative and qualitative designs.
Through the quantitative research approach/design, the researcher collected data from respondents which were relevant to the study through the use of questionnaires. Data on all the three objectives above were obtained through questionnaires, which ultimately yielded quantitative information in terms of frequencies (numbers), percentages and tables. The quantified statistical figures helped the researcher to get the trend of Kibena endangerment.
The researcher also applied qualitative research design during data collection process and also during data analysis process. The researcher collected data qualitatively by interviewing informants. He also used participant observation in order to get descriptive information which enriched the findings collected quantitatively through the questionnaire method. The data were also analyzed qualitatively by describing the
41 findings according to the compliance with the study objectives.
3.2 Area of Study
This study was conducted in Njombe and Wanging‟ombe districts of Njombe region in
Tanzania. It targeted Kibena speaking community in three selected villages; Mtwango
(Njombe), Uwemba (Njombe), and Kidugala (Wanging‟ombe). There were two reasons behind choosing these villages for the study. The first reason was that these are among the core areas where Kibena is spoken. The second reason was the fact that they provided a reasonable representation of all the major dialects of Kibena. This is due to the fact that the areas have potential social amenities which have attracted the Kibena speakers from different parts to migrate in those areas.
3.3 Sample Size and Sample Selection
The researcher met 48 adult respondents, 16 from each village mentioned above. Among the 48 respondents, 30 respondents were endogamous Kibena speakers and 18 of them were intermarried Kibena speakers. From each village the researcher met ten (10) adult endogamous Kibena speakers and six (6) Bena exogamous (intermarried) members.
There were both female and male informants from the age of 21 - 70+. They had different levels of education ranging from those who did not attend formal education to university graduates. The respondents‟ number and their distribution among the three villages where the research was conducted appear on table 5 below:
42 Table 5: Summary of the Respondents
S/N Village Endogamous Intermarried Total
Kibena Couples
speakers (20+ years) ( 20+ Years) 1. Mtwango 10 6 16 2. Uwemba 10 6 16 3. Kidugala 10 6 16 4. Total 30 18 48
Sampling techniques used: The researcher used both probability and non probability sampling techniques to get the respondents for the study. He applied stratified sampling
(probability sampling) to get endogamous Bena respondents. With the help of a local research assistant he divided the study population in households (strata) as basic groups for further selection of participants. He then applied simple random sampling, whereby he prepared cards with even and odd numbers. Every house hold member at the age ranging from 20 to 70 + years who picked an even number was selected for the study.
This way of sampling was used to get endogamous Kibena speakers.
The researcher also used purposive sampling (non - probability) to get intermarried respondents. The researcher directly selected the intermarried Bena members because they were the only ones who could supply the required information. This is because there was no way out that an out group person could provide the relevant information to the study which was only thought to be tenable from the intermarried members. Then the chosen respondents participated in answering questions from the questionnaires and interview which were posed by the researcher.
43 3.4 Data Collection Methods
In this study the researcher collected data by applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. The researcher used questionnaires (quantitative method) for data collection. At the same time he used qualitative methods for data collection which were non - participant observation and interviews.
3.4.1 The Use of Questionnaires
Questionnaire data collection method had closed ended questions. The questions were used to collect information about the role of Kibena speakers in transmitting their language to younger generations. They specifically focused on domains in which Kibena is used, the role of intermarried Kibena speakers in transmitting their language to younger generations (children) and Kibena speakers‟ attitudes to their language. The domains of Kibena use in which the researcher had concentrated in this study were; home, markets, monthly open markets, shops, religion (churches), traditional rituals, marriage ceremonies, burial ceremonies, hospitals and agricultural activities.
The researcher met the informants in their homes where he gave them questionnaires in which they answered questions about the study. The manner in which the informants were captured is expressed in the sampling techniques stated earlier above. Through this method the researcher was able to get the important quantitative information on the transmission of Kibena to younger generations (children) by its speakers. Being equipped with this information the researcher was able to assess the endangerment of the language, basing on the transmission of it to younger generations.
44 3.4.2 The Interview Method
This method was used by the researcher in eliciting oral responses from the adult informants concerning their efforts to transmit Kibena to younger generations. The interviews were also helpful in revealing information which in one way or another could not be given using questionnaires. This is because using an interview informants were given freedom of expressing themselves than in limited questionnaires. Facts which could not be posed in questionnaire responses were easily probed using oral questions.
The researcher arranged special days where he visited the respondents who formerly answered questions from questionnaires. He used the same respondents to answer the interview questions for two reasons. The first reason was that he needed clarification or giving informants an opportunity to give additional information on answers given through limited questionnaires. The second reason was to check the reliability and validity of data provided through answers obtained from the questionnaire responses.
Each of the 48 respondents was given twenty minutes to respond to the interview questions. The researcher therefore asked interview questions skillfully and recorded the given responses which were later transcribed and analyzed qualitatively. The analyzed interview responses supplemented the quantitative data to determine the extent to which they answered the objectives of the study.
3.4.3 Participant Observation
The researcher participated in different socio - economic activities performed in the following domains of language use; home, markets, monthly open markets, shops, religion (churches), traditional rituals, marriage ceremonies, burial ceremonies, hospitals and agricultural activities. The researcher participated accordingly in activities performed in these domains for the purpose of observing the actual use of Kibena by different age
45 groups. The home domain was given special attention because it is an important place where among other things it is an important platform for ensuring progressive transmission of the mother tongue.
Participant observation method was also used with the questionnaire method to check the validity and reliability of data collected using questionnaires. Moreover, it was helpful for exploring the actual use of Kibena among young people because of the claims that, if the language was used by this group then it could be assured of vitality, otherwise it was considered endangered.
3.5 Research Instruments
The researcher applied a wide range of research instruments in the data collection process. The instruments depended on the method used and the type of data collected.
Therefore in making this research task a reality, the researcher applied a number of instruments. The following is the list of instruments used for the study; questionnaires and interview guides were used for direct elicitation of data.
He also used observation guide to direct the conduct of participant observation. He was therefore able to observe the use of Kibena in its natural context in order to achieve the study objectives. He used recording equipment such as note books, and writing instruments to record oral responses from the informants. More over audio - recorders were used to record the interview responses and natural conversation. Finally, the computer was also used for storage and analysis purposes.
46 3.6 Data Analysis
The researcher used two methods in analyzing data. The first was quantitative data analysis method which was used to analyze data collected through questionnaires helping the researcher to manipulate data statistically. The statistics helped the researcher to produce frequencies, percentages and tables which provided the level of Kibena endangerment basing on the established standard scales. He also used the microsoft excel computer program and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 to analyze the findings obtained during the study. The second was qualitative data analysis which was used for the description of data obtained through participant observation, and interviews. The qualitative information was analyzed descriptively for the purpose of assessing the extent to which the collected data answered the research questions which were derived from the objectives of the study. This was done by reflecting on all the three objectives of this study. Therefore, qualitative analysis helped the researcher to come up with descriptive information on the endangerment of Kibena.
3.7 Research Ethics
The researcher was guided by the following ethical considerations in conducting this study:
Permission and informed consent: In order to accomplish this study successfully, the researcher began by obtaining permission from the University of Dodoma allowing him to collect data in the field. He was also given permission to conduct the study from the governments in the respective areas. After the researcher had been permitted by the government in particular localities to conduct the study, he then identified local research assistants. These were very important persons to help him conduct the study smoothly.
He asked for their readiness to assist him in the field data collection and agreed on terms
47 which governed the performance of the duties in the field.
Then, with the help of local research assistants the researcher succeeded to identify the informants. But before commencement of data elicitation from informants, the researcher asked for their readiness to participate in the study. He did so by explaining the intention of the study and assuring them that he will use their data for the intended purpose only.
Confidentiality was very important in this study. Therefore the researcher assured respondents that their information will be kept confidential by the researcher and that it will be used for the study purposes only. After that the informants were ready to participate in the study and accorded him the necessary cooperation.
Recording ethics: Recording informants‟ responses required some ethics. There are cases where some researchers tend to record people without their knowledge in the interest of gaining required data for their researches (Bowern, 2008). Wray et al (1998) discourage this type of recording. This is because if informants discover that they are recorded in this way they lose trust on the researcher. This leads them to withhold some important information for the study. In research, recording people without their permission is unethical. The researcher therefore informed respondents his intention to record them. He recorded his respondents after reaching mutual agreement. After finishing recording he told them that the recording exercise was over. In addition he gave chance to the interested informants to listen to what had been recorded.
Acknowledgment: Bowern (2008) insists on the importance of acknowledging the time spent and efforts shown by respondents in giving the required information to the researcher. Therefore the researcher acknowledged the contribution of each person who
48 participated in one way or another to accomplish this study. Furthermore he has acknowledged them individually or in general in the acknowledgement part of this work.
Personal ethics: The researcher, throughout the data collection process, adhered to ethical standards. He respected the research assistants, respondents and the entire community.
He used appropriate language. He further respected the community‟s culture and avoided misconducts that could tarnish his image and reputation of other researchers especially those working in field linguistics.
3.8 Validity and Reliability of Data
The researcher conducted a pilot study and used triangulation to ensure the validity and reliability of data. Through these he was able to test the objectives, methods and data collection instruments as described below:
He conducted a pilot study at Sovi village in Mtwango ward on the topic of this study. He applied the same objectives, methods and instruments. It was done before starting to collect the actual field data. Through pilot study he was able to discover some areas of improvement especially in the application of some methods of data collection. It was also beneficial in improving the effectiveness of research instruments. From the improvements the researcher gained assurance of the validity and reliability of the study.
The outcome was that the data collected during the mini - study manifested the same trend with those collected during the actual study.
The use of triangulation helped the researcher to test the validity and reliability of data.
Triangulation is a concept applied in research to denote the use of multiple research methods to check the validity and reliability of data collected. Berg (2001) and Dawson
(2007) insist on the use of triangulation. The researcher therefore used three methods
49 which were questionnaires (quantitative), interviews and participant observation
(qualitative) to check the validity and reliability of data.
3.9 Chapter Summary
The chapter dealt with the study methodology. The methodological issues discussed are research design, study area, study population and sampling. Others are data collection methods, research instruments, data analysis, validity and reliability of data. All these were very important for the success of this study. This is because they reflect on technical aspects of the study. They answer the question how which helps to realize the question what which is the investigated topic.
50 CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter is about data presentation, analysis and discussion of the findings about the researched topic on assessing Kibena endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter. The study was guided by three specific objectives. The first objective was to assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on its use in various domains as a means of transmitting it to younger generations. The second objective was to assess the endangerment status of Kibena basing on the role of intermarriages on transmitting the language to younger generations. The third objective was to assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on speakers‟ attitudes as a motivating factor behind transmitting the language to younger generations. The data for this study were collected from Kibena speaking community in Njombe and Wanging‟ombe districts using the questionnaire, interview and participant observation methods. The analysis of the findings was based on both quantitative and qualitative methods.
The researcher applied quantitative analysis in analyzing data obtained through the questionnaire leading to the presentation of frequencies, percentages and tables. The statistical manifestations explain the endangerment status of Kibena.
Through qualitative data analysis the researcher was able to describe data obtained through interview and participant observation in relation to the study objectives. The description has helped to clarify trends and phenomena which were not possible to do using the quantitative data. The researcher starts by presenting the basic information on the social status of the respondents.
51 4.1 Basic Information of the Respondents
The basic information of the respondents regarded their sex, age - groups and education levels is as follows; the sex information of the respondents was as follows; among 30
(100%) endogamous Kibena speakers, there were 14 (46.7%) male participants and 16
(53.3%) female counterparts. The exogamous informants were 18 (100%). The number included 8 (44.4%) male and 10 (55.6%) female respondents.
The information on the age - groups of the respondents focused both endogamous Kibena speakers and the intermarried Kibena speakers. The endogamous were 30 (100%) coming among different age - groups as follows; 21 - 30 were 11 (36.7%), 31 - 40 were
6 (20.0%), 41 - 50 were 4 (13.3%), 51 - 60 was 1 (3.3%), 61 - 70 were 3 (10.0%) and
70+ were 5 (16.7%). On the other hand the exogamous respondents were 18 (100.0%) being categorized into the following age - groups; 21 - 30 were 8 (44.4%), 31 - 40 were 7
(38.9%), 41 - 50 was 2 (11.1%), 51 - 60 was 1 (5.6%), 61 - 70 was 0 (0.0%) and 70+ was also 0 (0.0%). The absence of exogamous respondents in the last two age - groups was caused by the fact that intermarriages were very common among young Bena due to the current maximized inter ethnic contacts than it used to be in the past decades. Age groups were considered important in this study because the study itself had to do with intergenerational language transmission. It was therefore necessary to establish the extent of language use across different age groups in order to be able to achieve the study objectives.
The education levels of the 30 (100%) endogamous Bena respondents were; not attended formal education 1 (3.3%), primary education 22 (73.3%), O‟level secondary education 4
(13.3%), A‟ level secondary education 0 (0.0%), tertiary non - university education 0
(0.0%) and university education 3 (10%). The intermarried respondents were 18 (100%)
52 whose education levels were as follows; not attended formal education was 0 (0.0%), primary education 10 (55.6%), O‟level secondary were education 3 (16.7%), A‟ level secondary education 2 (11.1%), tertiary non - university education 1 (5.6%) and university education 2 (11.1%).
The other important information was the linguistic background of the respondents. This has to do with the first language of the respondents. Among 30 (100.0%) respondents who gave information regarding their L1, 24 (80.0%) used Kibena as their L1, 5 respondents (16.7%) had Kiswahili as their L1 and 1 respondent (3.3%) claimed to have an L1 from other ethnic community language even though the respondent for many years has been integrated into Kibena speakers and therefore speaks Kibena throughout.
4.2 Domains of Language Use
Domains of language use are among the core themes of the study. This is because it answers a key question to the study. Since, the researcher wanted to assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on its use in various domains as a means of transmitting it to younger generations. Regarding domains of language use the researcher investigated on Kibena use in the following domains; home, burial ceremonies, marriage ceremonies, religion, traditional rituals, agriculture, shops, market, monthly open markets and hospital. The results for each domain are presented in aggregate on table 6 below:
53 Table 6: Language Use in Different Domains
Domain Language used Kibena Kiswahili Mixture Total
of Kibena and Kiswahili
N % N % N % N % Home 4 13.3 20 66.7 6 20.0 30 100.0 Burial 2 6.7 2 6.7 26 86.7 30 100.0
ceremonies Marriage 0 0.0 12 40.0 18 60.0 30 100.0
ceremonies Religion 0 0.0 23 76.7 7 23.3 30 100.0 Traditional 29 96.7 0 0.0 1 3.3 30 100.0
rituals Agriculture 5 16.7 6 20.0 19 63.3 30 100.0 Shops 2 6.7 13 43.3 15 50.0 30 100.0 Markets 1 3.3 8 26.7 21 70.0 30 100.0 Monthly 1 3.3 10 33.3 19 63.3 30 100.0
open markets Hospital 0 0.0 23 76.7 7 23.3 30 100.0
Source: Field Data 2013
4.2.1 Home Domain
The researcher intended to know the language which Bena respondents speak with their children at home. Out of the total number of 30 respondents (100.0%), 4 respondents
(13.3%) claimed to use Kibena, 20 respondents (66.7%) claimed to use Kiswahili and 6
(20.0%) respondents declared that they use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
54 This study provides the current real situation of language use in the home among the
Bena. The current situation shows the fact that Kiswahili dominates the home use, its use by 66.7% among Bena is quite a big percentage. Still there is a significant number
(20.0%) of those who speak a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili at home. Those who still maintain the use of Kibena in the home are the minority.
4.2.2 Burial Ceremonies
The researcher intended to know the language used by respondents in burial ceremonies.
Among 30 respondents (100.0%) who answered the question, 2 of them (6.7%) claimed to use Kibena, 2 respondents (6.7%) indicated that they used Kiswahili in this domain and 26 respondents (86.7%) claimed to use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
Findings demonstrate that majority of Bena use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili in burial ceremonies. But very few speakers use Kibena in burial ceremonies. Similarly
Kiswahili is used by few Bena in this domain. So there are equal percentages between those who speak Kiswahili and those who speak Kibena.
4.2.3 Marriage Ceremonies
Respondents who answered this question were 30 (100.0%), these respondents were required to show the languages which they use when celebrating marriage ceremonies.
The responses were as follows; there were no respondent (0.0%) who claimed to use
Kibena in this domain, 12 respondents (40.0%) identified themselves with Kiswahili, and
18 respondents (60.0%) were noted to function in the mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
The data reveals that Kibena is not used in marriage ceremonies. A small number of
Bena use Kiswahili in marriage ceremonies while majority of them use a mixture of
Kibena and Kiswahili in these ceremonies.
55 4.2.4 Religion
Respondents were asked to state the language which they use in places of worship specifically in churches. The responses to this question were as follows; the total number of the respondents were 30 (100.0%), out of them there were no respondent (0.0%) who declared to use Kibena in the church, 23 respondents (76.7%) said they use Kiswahili, 7 respondents (23.3%) declared to use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
The field data have shown that majority of Christians use Kiswahili only in performing different church services and worship. In protestant and independent churches there are some mixtures of Kibena and Kiswahili. But there is no complete use of Kibena in the domain of religion (for Christian worship in churches).
4.2.5 Traditional Rituals
The respondents were required to indicate the language which they use in traditional rituals. The respondents to this question were 30 (100.0%), their responses to this question were as follows; 29 respondents (96.7%) said Kibena, there was no respondent
(0.0%) who said Kiswahili and 1 respondent (3.3%) said a mixture of Kibena and
Kiswahili.
This study shows that almost all communications in Bena traditional rituals are conducted in Kibena. But in rare circumstances a blend of Kibena and Kiswahili is used.
Kiswahili is entirely not used in Bena traditional rituals.
4.2.6 Agriculture
The respondents were requested to indicate the language which they use in agricultural activities (in farms). The informants who responded to this question were 30 (100.0%), the responses given by the informants were as follows; 5 respondents (16.7%) said
56 Kibena, 6 respondents (20.0%) said Kiswahili, and 19 respondents (63.3%) said a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
Basing on the field data it is realized that in agricultural activities majority of Bena people use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. The next dominant language of communication in this sector is Kiswahili. Kibena is used by few people in agriculture.
4.2.7 Shops
The researcher asked respondents to state the language which they use for daily communications in shops. The respondents to the question were 30 (100.0%), their responses were as follows; 2 respondents (6.7%) claimed to use Kibena, 13 respondents
(43.3%) claimed to use Kiswahili, and 15 respondents (53.0%) inclined to the mixture of
Kibena and Kiswahili.
The study reveals that majority of Bena people speak a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili in shops. Kiswahili takes the second position and Kibena being rarely used for overall communication in shops.
4.2.8 Markets
Respondents were required to state the language which they speak in markets. The respondents to this question were 30 (100.0%). Out of them 1 respondent (3.3%) said
Kibena, 8 respondents (26.7%) said Kiswahili, and 21 respondents (70.0%) said a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
The presented data on language use in the market domain shows the fact that; majority of
Bena use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. Then Kiswahili assumes the second
57 position since it is used by almost a quarter of the market participants (vendors & buyers). Kibena is mainly used by elders who cannot function in Kiswahili.
4.2.9 Monthly Open Markets
Respondents were asked to indicate the language which they use in monthly open markets. The respondents to this question were also 30 (100.0%), out of these 1 respondent (3.3%) claimed to use Kibena, 10 respondents (33.3%) claimed to use
Kiswahili, and 19 respondents (63.3%) claimed to use a mixture of Kibena and
Kiswahili.
In monthly open markets the main language of communication is the mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili, followed by a significant number of people who entirely use Kiswahili.
Kibena takes the least position in this domain since it is used by very few people especially elders who are not conversant in Kiswahili.
4.2.10 Hospital
The researcher explored the language (s) used by the respondents at the dispensary or hospital to secure medical treatment. In order to achieve this task the researcher asked the respondents to indicate the language which they speak at the dispensary or hospital. The question was responded by 30 informants (100.0%), the responses were as follows; there was no informant (0.0%) who claimed to use Kibena, 23 respondents (76.7%) indicated that they use Kiswahili, and 7 respondents (23.3%) said that they use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
The study indicates that Kibena is not used in hospitals or dispensaries. The major language used among Bena for acquiring health services is Kiswahili with few of them speaking a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
58 4.2.11 Discussion
The study on domains of language use shows that the use of Kiswahili dominates the home, hospital and religious domains. Kibena language is highly dominant in traditional rituals. However the remaining six domains which are shops, markets, monthly open markets, marriage ceremonies, burial ceremonies and agriculture are dominated by the use of the mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili.
The findings signal the fact that Kibena has deteriorated significantly in the very important home domain. The home domain is very important platform for transmitting any language to children. It is further contended that the home plays a significant role for acquiring mother tongue and passing it to younger generations (Burnet & Colahan,
2005). Fishman (1991) had the view that the language spoken in the family carries cultural self identity. Parents are expected to reinforce the use of their language by speaking it to their children at home. If the decision to use and teach the language to children at home triumphs then it could establish firm roots than it being used in other domains. Thus Clyne and Kipp (1999) concluded that if the language is not maintained at home it will not be maintained anywhere.
But Kibena has lost its importance in the home domain since it has been replaced by
Kiswahili. Kibena is spoken mostly by old people. The middle aged persons tend to speak a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. This state signals that Kibena has reached the stage of great shift in this important domain. Hence even its transmission to children has become remarkably impossible. The researchers‟ observation concerning the impact of
Kibena shifting at home among children noted that even the home play grounds were dominated by Kiswahili conversation.
59 The dominance of Kiswahili in hospital and domains of religion also signals language shift in these domains. But this dominance is not critically threatening since these are official domains which have been dominated by Kiswahili for a long time without putting
Kibena in jeopardy. Mekacha (1993) argued that Kiswahili is always used in formal domains like churches and hospitals since it is understood by all people regardless their ethnic affiliations. So the exclusive use of Kiswahili in these official domains does not pose any threat to intergeneration transmission of Kibena.
Moreover Kibena dominance in traditional rituals is not a new phenomenon. Since in traditional rituals, the language is always used. Kiswahili is not used in Bena traditional rituals. It is claimed that the ancestors understand only Kibena. Since the Bena people want to maintain their rituals and cultures, some of them still consider it important to teach the language to children. One respondent when interviewed by the researcher said:
Kwa sababu mimi nazeeka lazima niwaachie hiyo lugha ya
Kibena kwa kuwa lazima na hao watoto nitawaachia matambiko.
Na matambiko lazima uongee kilugha. Huwezi kuongea kingeleza
au Kiswahili kwenye matambiko. Translated by the researcher as;
„Considering the fact that I am becoming old I must transmit
Kibena to children because they are required to inherit
traditional rituals. In traditional rituals Kibena is obligatory.
You cannot speak English or Kiswahili in traditional rituals.‟
Despite Kibena dominating the traditional rituals the situation does not really influence its intergenerational transmission. The influence of Christianity and modernity has caused many young people to lose interest in the rituals hence refusing to participate.
Also children are not allowed to take part in traditional rituals as one informant
60 responded to researcher‟s interview by saying matambiko ni kwa wazee tu, watoto hawaruhusiwi hata kidogo. Matambiko ni kwa ajili ya luvungo hivyo ni marufuku kabisa kwa watoto. Translated by researcher as; „traditional rituals are reserved for elders only, children are not allowed at all. Traditional rituals are specifically meant to teach morals to people who are initiated to adulthood so children are strictly prohibited to participate.‟
Even if participation was high still this domain is strictly ceremonial hence having
Kibena dominance is not an immediate platform for strengthening the language roots among children.
The study has pointed out that the language used in burial and marriage ceremonies among the Bena people is the mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. This situation is caused by the fact these ceremonies involve religious functions which are mainly performed in
Kiswahili. But in other non religious proceedings in these domains people are free to converse either in Kibena or Kiswahili. Since the participants of these ceremonies have variations in Kibena competence they tend to adopt some mixtures of Kibena and
Kiswahili. Also the non - Bena people especially immigrants and civil servants from other parts of the country working among the Bena participate in these ceremonies to show a sense of solidarity hence they use either Kiswahili or a mixture of Kibena and
Kiswahili. The use of mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili is not vital for Kibena transmission among young people hence affecting its vitality.
The study also revealed that in shops a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili dominates. This has to do with the fact that shops are owned by Bena themselves hence they have a choice to speak Kiswahili or Kibena depending on their competence in the language. But researcher‟s observation noticed that even among Bena themselves a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili is used. The situation was caused by their mastery in Kiswahili with
61 deteriorating fluency in Kibena. Other people who come to shops are non - Bena hence they use either Kiswahili or a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili so that they mutually understand with Kibena speakers.
The market domain is dominated by the use of the mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. The daily markets are mainly dominated by Bena themselves. The pattern of language use in the markets is still a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili, even if the participants are mainly
Bena. The researcher‟s observation discovered that the normal discourse among Bena people is that of the mixture. The society is heterogeneous with old people speaking
Kibena fluently while the young people speaking Kiswahili with high fluency. Therefore in order to have mutual intelligibility they resort to mix both Kiswahili and Kibena. This tendency is not healthy for the prosperity of Kibena among young generations.
The language used in monthly open markets is also a mixture of Kiswahili and Kibena.
This is because these markets attract people from different parts of the country. So in their encounter with Bena customers their major language of communication is
Kiswahili. But some Kibena speakers are not competent in Kiswahili, so in order to have mutual intelligibility they use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. This domain influences young people to be eager to learn Kiswahili than Kibena in order to be able to function in trade transactions in the markets. This habit hampers intergenerational Kibena transmission.
The last domain which was investigated for the purpose of determining language use was that of agriculture. According to the data Kibena speakers predominantly use the mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili to communicate in agricultural activities with few of them using either Kibena or Kiswahili. This implies that majority of Bena people are shifting to
62 Kiswahili. Moreover some Bena who engage in agriculture have completely adopted the use of Kiswahili with only a few of them confining themselves to Kibena.
The findings of this study have shown a diverging trend of the current language use among the Bena especially when comparing with the study done by Mekacha about 20 years ago. Mekacha (1993) says in most cases agricultural activities are undertaken by local people who normally use their language. He further points out that, language which people use at work depends on the nature of work. He says there are activities which are done by family members like farming, where L1 ought to be used. There are times when work is done communally with dominance of younger generations then a mixture of
Kiswahili and an ECL is expected to dominate.
The nature of farm work among the Bena is similar to that described by Mekacha, in the sense that many farm activities involve members of the family. In such cases it is expected to see Kibena dominating. But it has not been the case; from the data very few people still use Kibena in farms. This happens when old people only participate in farming without interference from the youth and children. The elders are therefore free to talk to themselves in Kibena. One respondent aged 70 years when interviewed by the researcher said; Mimi nikiwa shambani na mke wangu tunaoongea Kibena tu hakuna kingine. Lakini tukiwa na watoto ambao hawaelewi vizuri Kibena tunachanganya na
Kiswahili, tufanyaje hali ndivyo ilivyo. Translated by researcher as; „when I am at the farm with my wife we speak to each other using Kibena nothing else. But when we are together with children who do not know Kibena properly we mix Kibena with Kiswahili, there is nothing we can do, and this is the reality.‟
Moreover when communal activities are done involving old and young people both
Kiswahili and Kibena are used for communication. In cases where young people
63 participate in communal activities their language is Kiswahili. But the current situation forces old people to adopt Kiswahili since it is used by majority of the young speakers.
The overall situation of language use among the Bena community in agricultural activities rapidly shifts from Kibena to Kiswahili. The current mixture of Kibena and
Kiswahili signals that the shift is gradual. Therefore one should not expect to have reliable transmission of the language to children since elders themselves are attracted to abandon their language by the current sociolinguistic situation.
From the discussion on domains of language use it is evident that Kibena is dominant in traditional rituals while Kiswahili dominates the home, hospitals and religious domain.
All other domains are dominated by a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. The general observation indicates Kibena is shifting in all domains except in the traditional rituals.
The shift in home domain has a serious impact on Kibena endangerment especially when focusing on its intergenerational transmission. Since the home is very important platform for language transmission to children. Its shift in the home disrupts its intergenerational transmission among children hence endangering the language.
When these findings are rated with the UNESCO (2003) LVEAG factor number 4 as presented on table 1 of this work, Kibena is on grade 2 of endangerment. This means that the degree of Kibena endangerment has reached the level of having limited domains or formal domains. UNESCO (ibid) clarifies that when the language reaches this stage it retains its use in limited social domains and for several functions. The findings of this study concur with the interpretation of UNESCO since Kibena is mainly limited to traditional rituals and it still has several functions in other domains which are dominated by Kiswahili. This situation indicates that Kibena is experiencing high rates of endangerment to date than ever before.
64 4.3 The Role of Intermarriages on Transmitting Kibena to Younger Generations
One of the study objectives was to assess the endangerment status of Kibena basing on the role of intermarriages on transmitting the language to younger generations. In order to achieve this important study objective, the researcher devised four questions which were important to elicit the relevant information to the study basing on this objective.
The findings on those questions are as follows:
4.3.1 Language Used for Communication among Exogamous Partners
The researcher asked the intermarried Kibena speakers to state the language which they use for communication with their non - Bena partners. The responses given are presented on table 7 below:
Table 7: Language Use among Exogamous
Bena Partners
Language Number Percent
(N) (%) Kibena 3 16.7 Kiswahili 12 66.6 Mixture of Kibena 3 16.7
and Kiswahili Partner‟s language 0 0.0 Total 18 100.0
Source: Field Data, 2013
The data indicate that majority of the intermarried Kibena speakers communicate with their non Bena partners in Kiswahili. The data further show that there is an equal number between intermarried Bena who speak Kibena and those who speak a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili when conversing with their non - Bena partners. However, according to
65 the data there is no any exogamous Bena who communicates using his/her partner‟s language.
4.3.2 Teaching Kibena to Children of Exogamous Bena Families
The exogamous respondents were required to say if they teach Kibena to their children or not. The respondents who answered this question were 18 (100.0%), their responses were as follows; 5 respondents (27.8%) said YES, and 13 respondents (72.2%) said NO.
From the above field data, it is evident that majority of intermarried families do not teach their language to children. On the other hand few intermarried families teach the language to their children.
4.3.3 Domains of Kibena Use among Exogamous Family Members
The respondents were required to indicate the domains where they use Kibena for communication, if at all they teach the language to their children. Their responses are tabulated and presented on table 8 below:
Table 8: Domains of Kibena Use among
Exogamous Family Members
Domain Number Percent
(N) (%) Home 4 22.2 Socio - economic activities 1 5.6 Do not use anywhere 13 72.2 Total 18 100.0
Source: Field Data, 2013
66 The data from the study show that majority of exogamous Kibena speakers do not communicate with their children in Kibena in any of the domains of language use. This implies that the transmission of Kibena to children is affected hence catalyzing the language endangerment. A small number of exogamous Bena speak Kibena to their children at home and in socio - economic activities.
4.3.4 Exogamous Children’s Ability to Use Kibena
The respondents were required to state if their children are capable of using Kibena fluently when communicating to their parents or the wider society. The respondents to this question were 18 (100.0%). Their responses were as follows; 3 respondents (16.7%) said YES, and 15 respondents (83.3%) said NO.
From the data it is realized that more than three quarters of the children in the intermarried Bena families cannot communicate using Kibena either to their parents or to the wider society. This means that majority of them are capable of using Kiswahili for communication at different levels of mastery. However, few children in those families are capable of communicating in Kibena.
4.3.5 Discussion
Exogamous marriages are associated with language endangerment because it is one of the main causes of disrupting intergenerational language transmission especially affecting the minority languages. This reality was reported by Dopke (1992) who reported that parents who came from different linguistic backgrounds are the source of intergenerational language cut - off. Dopke emphasizes that exogamous parents usually have different mother tongues, forcing them to speak the dominant languages. Chessa
(2011) reports the same situation that in mixed language families there is high loss of
67 minority languages. The situation of Kibena in exogamous families is generally not stable. The findings of this study portray this reality. The general trend of language use and transmission among exogamous families show that Kibena has very little chance.
The researcher‟s investigation on the language use among exogamous partner‟s indicates that the dominant language in those families is Kiswahili. There are some few families which use a mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili. But very few of them use Kibena. This scenario of language use is similar to the one reported by Dopke (ibid) that many mixed language couples opt to use the dominant language. But one can still ask this question; is it bad for the intermarried couples to use the dominant language? This tendency is not bad at all in itself because people are also at liberty to choose the language which they have preference. But when parents dishonor their crucial responsibility of teaching L1 to their children then their dominant language preference catalyzes language endangerment by stopping the intergenerational language continuity.
Children under such situations are nurtured in the environment where there is no use of neither father‟s nor mother‟s L1, leading to loosing those important languages of their heritage because the intergenerational mother tongue transmission is disturbed. Stopping using parents‟ mother tongues at home means denying them the required exposure to the languages. This act accelerates language endangerment. The situation noticed among
Bena is that Kiswahili dominates home conversation among exogamous Bena couples.
This is an evidence of the contribution of intermarriages in language endangerment through the disruption of intergenerational transmission of Kibena in favor of Kiswahili.
Parents are expected to have deliberate plans to teach their mother tongues to children in the setting of exogamous families. This act directly transmits the language to the younger generations and therefore ensures minority language vitality. This study among Bena has
68 reported that majority of exogamous Bena parents do not teach their children Kibena. It is only 27.8% who claim to teach the language to children. But in the researcher‟s attempt to assess the exogamous Kibena speaker‟s attitudes towards their language as presented and discussed below, many exogamous speakers have expressed positive affiliation towards their language. But the study revealed that their claims are not put in practice. Many of them teach Kiswahili to their children. This tendency is also a good ground for the language loss among their children.
The comparison between endogamous Bena marriages and exogamous Bena marriages show that exogamous marriages contribute greatly to disruption of intergenerational
Kibena transmission leading to its endangerment. This is because half of the endogamous
Bena families claim to teach Kibena to children and another half has confirmed not to do so. But the exogamous Kibena speakers who do not teach their language to children reaches two third of all endogamous families. This trend leads the researcher to affirm the statement of Chessa (2011) that mixed language families accelerate the rate of language loss among children.
Domains of use are the best platforms for children to practice and therefore reinforce the language which they acquire at home. The findings of this study have indicated that the few exogamous couples who teach their language to children have limited domains of using their language. When trying to consider the domains of use among endogamous couples, it was found that they had widened domains of using their Kibena with children, even if these children lacked fluency in Kibena but they somehow could gain exposure to more domains than it is the case among exogamous counterparts.
The study reveals that majority of exogamous Bena families denied teaching the language to their children. Since this group denied teaching the language to children
69 therefore, there were no any domains in which they speak the language with their children. But 27.8% claimed that they teach Kibena to their children. The reality is that
80% of those who teach the language to their children use it at home. The remaining 20% use in various domains. This situation signifies that the language has limited chance of use among exogamous partners. It is mainly confined to the homes of the few exogamous who claim to use it.
The observation by the researcher realized that even at home Kibena is mainly used for greetings. The language is used for conversation especially when grand parents pay visits. So these young people lack platform to practice the language. Therefore one cannot let the exogamous Kibena speakers without blame for causing language endangerment by breaking the intergenerational Kibena transmission.
From this study it is further revealed that children from exogamous families are not conversant in the language. The study has reported that most of the children in these families cannot speak Kibena; they are main speakers of Kiswahili. Since these children have limited fluency, they try to use Kibena at the level of greetings and apply some few fragmented words in their speech. This situation is similar to the study by Masinde
(2012) about the use of ECLs in Dodoma Municipality in Tanzania which reports cases of limited proficiency among children of exogamous families in terms of their parents‟ mother tongues. Some of them could only master greetings and could not proceed any more. This situation is also unhealthy to the prosperity of Kibena at present and in the future considering the fact that the future of Kibena is on the shoulders of its younger generations.
Generally, this study has revealed higher rates of language shift among children from exogamous families in comparison with endogamous Kibena speaking families. Even if
70 both types of families catalyze intergenerational Kibena disruption in one way or another but the exogamous do it at higher rates than the former. In fact intermarried families contribute greatly to endangerment of Kibena.
When rating the findings of this study to UNESCO (2003) LVEAG factor one (1) which is concerned with the assessment of language vitality and endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission, Kibena is on stage 3 of the degree of endangerment scales. According to UNESCO (ibid) the language which is at this stage is definitively endangered. The LVEAG factor 1 clarifies that the language which is at this degree of endangerment is used mostly by the parental generation and upwards. When focusing on the role of exogamous Bena families on transmitting the language to younger generations, Kibena is indeed definitively endangered since it is used by mostly Kibena speaking parents and grandparents when conversing among themselves and the surrounding community. There are limited chances for children to learn and practice the language considering the nature of their families which have mixed linguistic backgrounds. Lack of transmitting this language to children in intermarried families is a serious matter since it has contributed to endangering the language by disrupting intergenerational transmission as per study findings which have been interpreted by
UNESCO standard scales.
4.4 Attitudes of Kibena Speakers
The researcher intended to assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on speakers‟ attitudes as a motivating factor behind transmitting the language to younger generations. This intention was coded by the researcher‟s objective number three of this study. In order to achieve this objective, there were four questions asked. The questions and their respective responses are presented in the subtitles below:
71 4.4.1 The Importance of Kibena in the Context of Kiswahili Dominance
The respondents were required to state if there is any importance of using Kibena in the context where Kiswahili is used by many people. The responses by both endogamous and exogamous informants are presented on table 9 below:
Table 9: Responses on the Importance of Kibena in
the Context of Kiswahili Dominance
Respondents Responses
YES NO TOTAL N % N % N % Endogamous 20 66.7 10 33.3 30 100.0 Exogamous 13 72.2 5 27.8 18 100.0
Source: Field Data; 2013
From the data presented on table 9 above it is revealed that majority of endogamous
Kibena speakers agree that there is an importance of using their language in the context where Kiswahili is used by many people. But few of them negate its importance. The findings also indicate that majority of the intermarried Kibena speakers affirmed that
Kibena is still important in the context where Kiswahili dominates. Besides few exogamous Kibena speakers had negative attitude towards the use of their language.
They even said that the language is no longer important to be taught to children in the contemporary time where Kiswahili is dominant.
4.4.2 Pride of Kibena Speakers on the Progressive Use of their Language
The researcher aimed at assessing the attitudes of Kibena speakers to their language basing on their pride on the progressive use of Kibena for many generations to come. The
72 researcher therefore asked them this question “Do you feel proud to see Kibena being used for many years to come? This question was also answered by both endogamous and exogamous Kibena speakers. The summary of the responses are on table 10 below:
Table 10: Responses on the Pride of Kibena
Speakers on the Progressive Use of their
Language
Respondents Responses YES NO TOTAL N % N % N % Endogamous 22 73.3 8 26.7 30 100.0 Exogamous 14 77.8 4 22.2 18 100.0
Source: Field Data, 2013
The presented data on table 10 above show that majority of the endogamous Kibena speakers are proud of the progressive use of their language for many years to come. It is however found that only a small number of them have negative attitude on seeing their language being used for many years. Similarly the findings indicate that majority of the exogamous Kibena speakers are anxious to see their language being used for many years to come besides few of them disliking the continued use of the language.
4.4.3 Attitude of Kibena Speakers on Transmitting their Language to Children
The researcher investigated the attitudes of Kibena speakers on transmitting their language to children. In order to achieve this task he asked both endogamous and exogamous Kibena speakers the following question; do you feel responsible to transmit
Kibena to children? Their responses were; the 30 (100.0%) endogamous Kibena speakers responded as follows; 20 respondents (66.7%) said YES, and 10 (33.3%) respondents
73 said NO. The exogamous respondents were 18 (100.0%) their answers were; 11 respondents (61.1%) said YES and 7 respondents (38.9%) said NO.
The data show that majority of both endogamous and exogamous Kibena speakers felt responsible to transmit their language to children besides few of them who did not feel the same.
4.4.4 Attitudes of Kibena Speakers on their Language in this Era of Globalization
The researcher wanted to know if Kibena speakers still value their language to the extent of transmitting it to their children in this era of globalization. In order to accomplish this task, the researcher asked the following question; “Is Kibena worthy to be taught to children in this era of globalization?” Both endogamous and exogamous Kibena speakers were given an opportunity to answer this question. The following were their responses; the endogamous Kibena speakers who answered this question were 30 (100.0%). There answers were as follows; 17 respondents (56.7%) said YES, where as 13 respondents
(43.3%) said NO. More over the exogamous Kibena speakers who answered the question were 18 (100.0%) giving the following responses; 8 respondents (44.4%) said YES, and
10 respondents (55.6%) said NO.
The data reveal that majority of endogamous Kibena speakers agree that their language is worthy to be taught to children in this era of globalization. But majority of exogamous
Kibena speakers claim that their language is not worthy to be taught to children in this era of globalization. However minority of the endogamous Kibena speakers claim that their language is not worthy to be taught to their children who are under influence of globalization. At the same time few exogamous Kibena speakers still agree that their language is worthy despite the pressure of globalization.
74 4.4.5 Discussion
The researcher attempts to discuss the presented and analyzed findings which are intended to assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on speakers‟ attitudes as a motivating factor behind transmitting the language to younger generations. For the purpose of determining speakers‟ attitudes on Kibena for the intended purpose, the researcher used four questions of which both the endogamous and exogamous speakers responded accordingly. The researcher has already presented and analyzed the findings basing on each of the four questions as answered by both types of respondents. The presentation and analysis of the data have portrayed that Kibena speakers basically have positive attitudes towards their language despite the fact that few of them have negative attitudes. For the sake of the clarity of this discussion, the researcher wishes to clarify the concept attitude and relate to speakers‟ attitudes and show the extent to which they are related to language endangerment.
The concept attitude principally has to do with language speakers‟ feelings and emotions towards their own language (Batibo, 2005: 97). Attitudes are reflected through three basic components which are cognitive, affective and connotative (Baker, 1992). Baker clarifies that the cognitive component has to do with speakers‟ thoughts and beliefs.
Moreover affective part has to do with feelings and emotions. The last component of attitude according to Baker is concerned with the speaker‟s state of being able to act. In our study context being able to act means, the speakers should demonstrate their willingness to speak and transmit their language to younger generations and they should transform their readiness to practice.
The answers given by both endogamous and exogamous Kibena speakers when answering the four questions have indicated that, the speakers have positive attitudes
75 towards their language. This means that Kibena can survive for many years if one can stick to the theoretical assumptions that positive attitudes towards L1 is one of the basic requirements to ensure vitality of the language (Batibo, 2005). Apart from the positive affiliations shown by the majority of Kibena speakers to their language there are still some few Kibena speakers who demonstrated negative affection to their language. The small number of Kibena speakers who dislike the continuation and even use of their language should not be ignored, because in the continuum of language endangerment they mark a significant step towards the horrific destination in the future if the situation is left to persist. There are also theoretical assumptions that negative attitudes by speakers of the minority language are the basic causes of language shift or even abandonment
(Batibo, 2005). If the later works then negative attitudes of the speakers of the minority language culminates into language endangerment. From the findings it is indicative that the small numbers of Bena who have shown negative attitudes to their own language form the niche for language endangerment both today and in the future.
The majority of Kibena speakers show positive attitudes towards their language. From the UNESCO (2003) the situation could be interpreted that Kibena has high vitality because of safeguarding strong affiliations from its speakers. However the situation is very complicated among the Kibena speakers. This is reflected when one integrates the attitudes of the speakers and the reality of language use by the same speakers who claim to have strong feelings to their language. Furthermore the data collected apart from those focusing on attitudes, it is found that majority of both endogamous and exogamous
Kibena speakers do not teach their language to children.
The tendency manifested among Kibena speakers contradict with what Bakers (1992) said, the speakers‟ attitudes must be backed up by their readiness to use and transmit
76 their language to younger generations. However Kibena speakers are not willing to use their language in many domains. Moreover, they seldom teach the language to their children. Therefore their positive attitudes do not help them to transmit and develop their language.
The Kibena speakers‟ attitudes have partly been influenced by age and education. The researcher‟s critical scrutiny on language attitudes has portrayed the following; adult people of the age - group (21 - 40) especially those with secondary education and above have shown negative attitudes to their language. This fact was clearly noted by the researcher when conducting field interview. During the interview sessions the researcher noted the answers from respondents who had ordinary level secondary education and above. The responses even though were different but still they signaled the presence of negative attitudes among these young parents who had ordinary level secondary education. The first respondent said Napenda kutumia Kiswahili na Kiingereza kwa kwenda mbele, translated by the researcher as „I like to use Kiswahili and English spontaneously‟. The other three respondents had the same response, they said elimu inatumia Kiswahili na Kiingereza hivyo hakuna umuhimu wa Kibena, translated by the researcher as; „education uses Kiswahili and English therefore there is no importance of
Kibena‟.
These answers justify the fact that few Kibena speakers who have shown negative attitudes towards their language were affected by the influence of Tanzanian education system. The system uses Kiswahili as a language of instruction (LOI) in primary schools and as a subject in secondary and higher education (tertiary & university education) as well. More over the education system in Tanzania according to policy promulgation uses
77 English as LOI from secondary education to tertiary education (URT, 1995). Therefore
Kibena has no place in education.
Its absence in education deprives the status it deserves among its speakers. The current state of the use of either Kiswahili or English in schools has highly affected the attitudes of Kibena speakers towards their own language. That is the reason for the Bena who have attended secondary education and above to consider Kibena as less important. The school shaped Kibena attitudes have led some respondents during an interview with the researcher to provide these answers:
The first informant said; watu walio wengi ni wasomi kwa hiyo hawapendelei Kibena.
Translated by the researcher as „many people are educated, therefore they dislike
Kibena.‟ The second respondent when interviewed by the researcher gave responses which portray negative attitudes to Kibena as a result of exposure to secondary education. The following was the response; Hakuna sababu ya kuendeleza lugha ya
Kibena kwa sababu ya utandawazi, kwani shule nyingi zinatumia Kiswahili na hata nyumbani watu wengi huongea Kiswahili. „There is no reason of developing Kibena because of globalization, since many schools use Kiswahili and even at home many people speak Kiswahili‟ (Researcher‟s translation).
Crystal (2000) argues that the use of minority language in education creates a room for children who speak the language to gain its exposure and thorough understanding.
Furthermore, its use in the school curricula creates confidence and pride among the children who speak minority language which ultimately strengthens its transmission to young people. The situation has been different among Kibena speakers whose language has been marginalized in the school system. The outcome of which has led the speakers
78 who go to school especially to secondary school level and above to lose interest in their language.
The general picture from the findings on Kibena speakers‟ attitudes is that majority of them have positive attitudes to their language, and few of them have negative attitudes to their language and they even go further supporting its death. Despite many of them having positive attitudes to the language, in most cases, they neither speak it to children nor transmit it to them. The practice which makes their positive attitudes useless especially for ensuring Kibena vitality since attitudes alone cannot further intergenerational language transmission.
The assessment of the findings on Kibena speakers‟ attitudes to their language is based on UNESCO (2003) LVEAG factor number 8 presented on table 3 of this work. This factor provides a road map for assessing language vitality and endangerment focusing on community members‟ attitudes towards their own language. When the findings are rated against the LVEAG factor number 8, Kibena is on grade 3 of the degree of language endangerment. According to this factor when the language is at this grade of endangerment it has many members who support its maintenance; but others tend to be indifferent or they may even support its loss. Kibena fits this level of endangerment because many of its speakers show positive attitudes to it hence they support its maintenance, but few of them have negative attitudes to their language, hence they are indifferent and they even support its loss.
4.5 Chapter Summary
In this chapter the researcher presented the data collected during his field study on the topic. He then analyzed the data and discussed the findings basing on the three objectives of the study. It is from the presentation, analysis of data and discussion of the study
79 findings where the entire work gains its relevance. The researcher further rated the findings of the study against the UNESCO (2003) LVEAG factors number 1, factor number 4 and factor number 8 in order to determine the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on the three objectives of the study. Each factor has helped the researcher to put the language in respective degrees of endangerment as shown above in this chapter.
80 CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter is concerned with the summary, conclusion and recommendations of the study findings. It also gives suggestions for further research on the area of language endangerment in Tanzania. In summarizing, concluding and recommending the study findings, the researcher reflects on the study topic, methodology and hence tailors them with a theoretical framework.
5.1 Summary
The study aimed at assessing Kibena endangerment basing on its intergenerational transmission parameter. The study was implemented through the use of three specific objectives. The first objective was to assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on its use in various domains as a means of transmitting it to younger generations. The second objective was to assess the endangerment status of Kibena basing on the role of intermarriages on transmitting it to younger generations. The third objective was to assess the endangerment status of Kibena focusing on its speakers‟ attitudes as a motivating factor behind transmitting the language to younger generations. The three objectives were realized through three questions which were used to gather information from the respondents in the field.
The study had a mixed design that is it used both quantitative and qualitative methods in collecting and analyzing data. The methods which were particularly used for collecting and analyzing data were questionnaires, interviews and participant observation.
81 The study findings were rated against the UNESCO (2003) Language Vitality and
Endangerment Assessment Guideline (LVEAG). The LVEAG has nine factors which are considered by UNESCO (ibid) as useful for assessing the vitality and endangerment of languages. But for the convenience of this study, the researcher used three factors only.
The three factors used by the researcher were; factor number 1 which is about intergenerational language transmission, factor number four (4); shift in domains of language use and factor number eight (8); community members‟ attitudes towards their own language. The researcher used factor number 8 to assess the level of Kibena endangerment reflecting on objective number one (1). Factor number 1 was used to assess the level of Kibena endangerment by interpreting the data related to objective number two (2). Finally factor number four (4) assessed the data which reflected the objective number three.
The researcher‟s analysis of the three objectives of study while rating with the UNESO standards found that Kibena is endangered. Regarding its use in different domains it has been discovered that the language is highly used in traditional domains. But in other domains the language shifts tremendously. The researcher identified that even the home domain is highly affected. Therefore regarding domains of language use Kibena is on level 2 of endangerment, which signifies that the language has limited or formal domains.
The language is also endangered when considering the role of exogamous marriages in transmitting the language to children. It has been discovered that majority of exogamous
Kibena speakers use the language with elders leaving children to learn and use Kiswahili.
This situation has put Kibena in level three of factor number one that is being definitively endangered. That is it is used by parental generations and upwards.
82 The endangerment status of Kibena basing speakers‟ attitudes as a motivating factor towards transmitting the language to younger generations has revealed the fact that many of its speakers have positive attitudes to their language with few of them having negative attitudes to it. This puts the language in grade 3 of endangerment according to LVEAG scales. That is many of its speakers support its maintenance; but others are indifferent and they even support its loss.
The general assessment of the three objectives of study alongside the scales for assessing language vitality and endangerment by UNESCO (2003) indicates that Kibena is definitively endangered. That is through domains of language use assessment, looking at the way the language is taught to children in exogamous families and looking at the role of Kibena speakers‟ attitudes to their language on transmitting it to younger generations, the fact is that the language has no base among most young people hence categorizing it to the earlier mentioned level of endangerment.
5.2 Conclusion
Generally the findings of this study have revealed that Kibena is definitively endangered as earlier stated. This is because the language is becoming uprooted among the younger generations. The language is used in limited domains; in many domains Kiswahili dominates the daily conversation. Furthermore, the language has little chance of being used among intermarried Bena parents and their children. Also the language is still not used by many parents when communicating to children or young people despite their positive affiliation to the language. The fact is that Kibena has little chance of being used in different domains. This is a clear sign that younger generations are not prepared to use and develop their language. This scenario shows that the language is not secure for its future survival.
83 This fact requires immediate intervention to help the younger generations to gain preference of using the language. It is only when the younger generations use Kibena in different domains and develop positive attitudes to the language, where it can be assured of its maintenance. Otherwise one should not expect the future survival of the language under these circumstances. It should also be born in mind that it is not possible to develop Kibena if it is not used by younger generations. All cultural potentials are likely to perish with the language if the intergenerational transmission is disrupted.
At this level of endangerment it is not enough to claim that Kiswahili and education are the most enemies for Kibena prosperity. Besides language community members should understand the fact that the future of their language is on their shoulders. Both endogamous and exogamous Bena parents have the responsibility of teaching the language to their children by using it in different domains. It is also very important for
Kibena speakers to carry out their historic responsibility of making sure that the intergenerational language chain is not disrupted. It is not sufficient enough to claim that they wish to see their language being used for many years to come; they need to show their positive affiliations to the language by implementation. It is always true that words alone cannot realize ones dreams.
Therefore joint community efforts are needed to rescue Kibena from being further endangered. The very important area where Kibena speakers can prevent their language from further endangerment is through motivating young people to use it. This can be possible if they use the language in different domains. They should invest their efforts by strengthening its use in homes. They should not wait to use it in traditional rituals which are rarely performed. Efforts like writing grammar books, and translating the Holy Bible into Kibena should only be taken to supplement the former efforts. Since language
84 mainly survive through being spoken by its speakers of all age groups and not being locked in book shelves.
5.3 Recommendations
The endangerment level reached by Kibena today is great. It needs urgent efforts from different stake holders to accommodate the situation as recommended below:
The Bena community members should actively use their language and transmit it
to younger generations.
Kibena speakers should help the out group members married among Bena to
integrate into the community. This will enable them to learn Kibena and teach it
to their children.
Tanzanian government should help to develop ECLs by supporting stakeholders
who are interested to develop them including Kibena.
Linguists should conduct research on ECLs especially in the area of
endangerment and disseminate the findings to the respective language
communities such as the Kibena language community.
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research
This study was about assessing Kibena endangerment focusing on intergenerational language transmission parameter. It is therefore suggested that, further researches on language endangerment basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter should be done in unstudied ECLs in Tanzania and the rest of Africa. This is because dominant national and regional languages affect the transmission of minority languages to younger generations in African continent and specifically Kiswahili in Tanzania as it is
85 revealed in Kibena. This tendency causes the unstudied minority languages in Africa and particularly in Tanzania to be in different levels of endangerment though unnoticed.
5.5 Chapter Summary
In this chapter the researcher has given a summary of the study. The findings were rated against the UNESCO (2003) LVEAG factors and the general conclusion concerning the language‟s status of endangerment was given. The fact is that Kibena is definitively endangered. He has further dealt with the conclusion of the study findings to feature the status of Kibena endangerment. Throughout the conclusion he has tried to show the unpromising future of Kibena if its speakers will not transmit it to children. He has also cautioned that if they do not transmit the language to children other efforts for developing the language may end up in vain. After the conclusion, the researcher suggests some measures to be taken by different stakeholders to rescue Kibena from further endangerment. He finally persuades sociolinguists to study about language endangerment in unstudied ECLs in Tanzania and the rest of Africa basing on intergenerational language transmission parameter, a factor which is very essential for ensuring language vitality.
86 REFERENCES
Appleyard, D. (1998), “Language Death: The Case of Qwarenya (Ethiopia)”, Brenzinger,
1998.
Baker, C. (1992), Attitudes and Language, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Batibo, H. (1992), “The Fate of Ethnic Languages in Tanzania”, Brenzinger, 1992.
Batibo, H.M. (1997), “The Fate of Minority Languages in Botswana”, In Semeja, B. and Tasch, M (eds.), Human Contact through Language and Linguistics, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.
Batibo, H.M. (2005), Language Decline and Death in Africa: Causes, Consequences and
Challenges, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Berg, B.L. (2001), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, A Pearson
Education Company, USA.
Bernard, S. (1996), “Multilingualism in Israel”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
1996, Vol.17.
Bernader, R. (2012), Contact Induced Change in Bena (G 63): A Study of “Swahilization” in a Tanzanian Vernacular Language, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg.
Bowern, C. (2008), Linguistic Fieldwork: A Practical Guide, Palgrave Macmillan, New
York.
Brenzinger, M. (2001), “Language Endangerment through Marginalization and
Globalization”, Sakiyama & Endo, 2001.
87 Chessa, E. (2011), The Intergenerational Transmission of Catalan in Alghero, Thesis Submitted for the Qualification of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Queen Mary, University of London.
Cleyne M. and Kipp, S. (1999), Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context: Spanish, Arabic and Chinese, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Crystal, D. (2000), Language Death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dawson, C. (2007), A Practical Guide to Research Methods: A User – friendly Manual for Mastering Research Techniques and Projects (Third Edition), How To Books Ltd, United Kingdom.
Denison, N. (1971), Some Observations on Language Variety and Pluringualism in
Social Anthropology and Language, Tavistock Publications, London.
Dopke, S. (1992), One Parent One Language: An Interactional Approach, John
Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Dorian, N.C. (1986 a), “Gathering Language Data in Terminal Speech Communities”,
Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of language, Vol.2.
Dorian, N.C. (1998), “Western Language Ideologies and Small - language Prospects”, in Grenoble L.A and Whaley, L.J. (eds.), Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Edwards, J. (1992), “Sociopolitical Aspects of Language Maintenance and Loss: Towards a Typology of Minority Language Situations”, In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert and S. Kroon (eds.), Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
88 Edwards V. and Newcombe, L.P. (2005a), “When School is not enough: New Initiatives in Intergenerational Language Transmission in Wales”, The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 8, No. 4.
Fishman, J.A. (1965), “Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When,” La
Linguistique, Vol.2.
Fishman, J.A. (1972), Language Maintenance and Language Shift as a Field of Inquiry: Revisited in Language in Sociocultural Change, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Fishman, J. A. (1991), Reversing Language Shift, Theory and Practice of Assistance to
Threatened Languages, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Grenoble, L.A & Whaley, L.J. (2006), Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language
Revitalization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Grimes, B.F. (2000), Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Vols. 1 & 2) 4th edn, SIL International, Dallas.
Hale, K. (1998), “On Endangered Languages and the Importance of Linguistic
Diversity”, Language, Vol.68, No. 1.
Harrison, G et al. (1981), Bilingual Mothers in Wales and the Language of their
Children, University of Wales Press, Cardiff.
Hayward, R.J. (1998), “The Endangered Languages of Ethiopia: What‟s at Stake for the Linguist?” in Brenzinger, M. (ed.), Endangered Languages in Africa, Rudiger Koppe Verlang, Kohl.
Holmes, J. (2008), An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, Pearson, Harlow.
89 Hongole, M.A. (2002), “Hulo Ulumuli Lwadzile: Ihate Indongodzi Ukwimbe na Kusimba Indongele ja Vabena [This Light has Come: Writings on the Grammar, Sounds, and Writing of the Language of the Bena People]”, In B. Mitterhorfer, Lessons from a Dialect Survey of Bena Analysing Wordlists, University of Leiden, Leiden.
Huffines, M.L. (1980), “Pennsylvania German: Maintenance and Shift”, International
Journal of the Sociology of Languages, Vol. 25.
Jones, H.M. (1998), “Mother Tongue Welsh Speakers and Welsh Speaking Couples” in the Proceedings of the colloquium on Minority - language Population Census and Social Surveys.
Jones, H.M. (2009), The Intergenerational Transmission of the Welsh: An Analysis of the
2001 Census Results for Wales, Welsh Language Board, Cardiff.
Josserand, J.F. (2003), Conquête, Survie et disparition: Italien, Français et
Francoprovençal en Vallée d’Aoste, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala.
Kahigi, K. K. (2004), “Utumizi wa Lugha za Asili katika Elimu: Changamoto, Matatizo na Fursa zilizopo”, Paper Read at the Conference of The Languages of Tanzania, June 18 – 19, 2004, Dar es Salaam.
Kastenholz, R. (1998), “Language Shift and Language Death among Blacksmiths and
Leather Workers in the Diaspora”, Brenzinger, 1998.
Krauss, M. (1992), The World‟s Languages in Crisis, Language, Vol. 68, No. 1.
Légere, K. (1992), “Language Shift in Tanzania,” in Brenzinger, M. (ed.), Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
90 Légere, K. (2006 b), “Formal and Informal Development of the Swahili Language: Focus on Tanzania”, Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Levens, J, P. “Kibena, A Beginner‟s Dictionary (also with some Kigogo)”, In B.
Mitterhorfer, Lessons from a Dialect Survey of Bena Analysing Wordlists, University of
Leiden, Leiden.
Lewis, M.P. (2009), Ethnologue: Languages of the World 16th Edition, SIL International, Dallas.
Lyon, J. (1996), Becoming Bilingual: Language Acquisition in a Bilingual Community,
Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Madumulla, J. S. (2004), “Mateke ya Punda Anayekufa Yatasaidia? Tatitizo la Kuzikuza Lugha za Makabila katika Tanzania”, Paper Read at the Conference of The Languages of Tanzania, June 18 – 19, 2004, Dar es Salaam.
Masinde, Y.N. (2013), The Status of Ethnic Community Languages: A Comparative Study between Endogamous and Exogamous Families in Dodoma Municipality, Tanzania, Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany.
Mekacha, R.D.K. (1993), The Sociolinguistic Impact of Kiswahili on Ethnic Community Languages in Tanzania: A Case of Ekinata, Bayreuth African Studies Series, Bayreuth.
Middleton, J. (1992), The World of the Swahili: An African Mercantile Civilization, Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
Mkude, D. (2003), “Linguistic Heritage in Tanzania: State of the Art, Needs and Solutions”, Paper Read at the International Conference on Endangered Languages, UNESCO, Paris, March 10 – 12, 2003.
Montoya, A. B. (1996), Alacant: La llengua Interrompuda, Denes, Valencia.
91 Morris D. and Jones, K. (2007), “Minority Language Socialization within the Family: Investigating the Early Welsh Language Socialization of Babies and Young Children in Mixed Language Families in Wales,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol.28, No.6.
Mous, M. (2001), “Paralexification in Language Intertwining”, Smith & Veenstra, 2001.
Mreta, A. (2000), “The Nature and Effects of Chasu – Kigweno Contact”, Kahigi, Kihore and Mous, 2000.
Msanjila, Y. P. (2003), “Kushuka kwa Hadhi ya Lugha za Jamii Nchini Tanzania”, Nordic
Journal of African Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3.
Muhelwa et al. (2005), “Sarufi ya Lugha ya Kibena [Grammar of the Bena Language],” In B. Mitterhorfer, Lessons from a Dialect Survey of Bena Analysing Wordlists, University of Leiden, Leiden.
Muzale, H.R.T & Rugemalira, J.M. (2008), “Researching and Documenting Languages of Tanzania”, Language Documentation and Conservation, Vol.2 (1), 68.
Nurse, D. (1979), “Description of Sample Bantu Languages of Tanzania: Bena” In B.
Mitterhorfer, Lessons from a Dialect Survey of Bena Analysing Wordlists, University of Leiden, Leiden.
Nurse, D & Phillipson, G. (eds.), (2003), The Bantu Languages, Curzon, Richmond.
Nyagava, S.I. (1999). A History of Bena to 1914, Iringa University College, Iringa.
Perta, C. (2004), Language Decline and Death in Three Arberesh Communities in Italy: A Sociolinguistic Study, Edizioni dell‟Orso, Alessandria.
Robinson, P.A (1989), “French Mother Tongue Transmission in Mixed Mother Tongue
Families”, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol.14, No.3.
92 Romaine, S. (1995), Bilingualism 2nd Edition, Blackwell, Oxford.
Romaine, S. (2002), “The Impact of Language Policy on Endangered Languages”,
International Journal on Multilingual Societies, Vol.4 (2).
Rubanza, Y. I. (2004), “Lugha kwa Njia ya Mawasiliano na Ujumbe: Nafasi ya Lugha za
Asili”, Paper Read at the Conference of The Languages of Tanzania, June 18 – 19,
2004, Dar es Salaam.
Sallabank, K. J. (2007), “Endangered Language Maintenance and Social Networks”, in the Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, SOAS, London.
Shahidi, M. (2008), A Sociolinguistic Study of Language Shift in Mazandarani, Uppsala
Universitet, Uppsala.
Sommer, G. (1992). “A Survey on Language Death in Africa”, Brenzinger, 1992.
Stegen, O. (2003), How Does their Language Survive? A sociolinguistic Glimpse at the
Rangi Language, Edinburgh Department of Linguistics, U.K.
Strom, E. (2009), “The Situation of Ndengereko: A Coastal Tanzanian Language (P.10),” Selected Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, M.A Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Thomson, S. (2001), Language Contact: An Introduction, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Timm, L.A. (1980), “Bilingualism, Diglossia and Language Shift in Brittany”,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Vol. 25.
93 Torres, P.J. et al. (2007), “L‟ús Familiar i la Transmissió Lingüística Intergeneracional”, in Llengua Isocietat als Territoris de Parla Catalana als Inicis del Segle XXI. L’Alguer, Andorra, Catalunya, Catalunya Nord, la Franja, Illes Balears i País Valencià, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona.
UNESCO, (2003), Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages: Language Vitality and Endangerment, UNESCO, Paris.
URT. (1995), Education and Training Policy, The Ministry of Education and Culture, Dar es Salaam.
Wedin, A. (2004), Literacy Practices in and out of School in Karagwe: The Case of Primary School Literacy Education in Rural Tanzania, Center for Research on Bilingualism Stockholm University, Stockholm.
Whiteley, W. (1969), Swahili; the Rise of National Language: Studies in African History, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London.
Williams, G. (1987), “Bilingualism, Class Dialect and Social Reproduction”,
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Vol. 66.
Winter, J. C. (1979), “Language Shift among Aasax, a Hunter – gatherer Tribe in Tanzania: A Historical and Sociolinguistic Case – Study”, Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika, Vol.1.
Winter, J.C. (1992), “175 Years of Language Shift in Gweno”, Brenzinger, 1992.
Wray, A. et al. (1998), Projects in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Researching
Language, Hodder Arnold, London.
Zelealem, L. (1998), “Some Structural Signs of Obsolescence in K‟emant.” Brenzinger,
1998.
94 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A1: QUESTIONNAIRE
Filling Instructions: Please, fill in this questionnaire by putting the tick in the space provided for each chosen number or letter or mention where applicable. You may explain or give reasons if you are required to do so. If the space provided is not enough you may write in a separate sheet.
Question numbers 1 – 3 are for both endogamous and exogamous Kibena speakers
1. Sex: Male [ ] Female [ ]
2. Please indicate your age – group from among the following:
21 – 30 [ ], 31 – 40 [ ], 41 – 50 [ ], 51 – 60 [ ], 61 – 70 [ ], 70+ [ ]
3. What is your education level? (i) Not attended formal education [ ] (ii) Primary
education [ ] (iii) O‟level secondary [ ] education (iv) A‟ level secondary education [ ]
(v) Tertiary non – university education [ ] (vi) University education [ ]
Question numbers 4 – 17 are for endogamous Kibena speakers only
4. How many languages do you use? (i) One [ ] (ii) Two [ ] (iii) Three [ ] (iv) More than three ………….. (Mention them)
5. What is your first language (mother tongue)? (i) Kibena [ ] (ii) Kiswahili [ ]
(iii) Another language……………… (Mention it)
6. Do you speak Kibena fluently? (i) Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ]
7. Do you transmit (teach) Kibena to your children? (a)Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
8. Which language do you use for communication with your children at home?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
9. Which language do you use in burial ceremonies?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
95 10. Which language do you use in marriage ceremonies?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
11. Which language do you use in places of worship (church)?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
12. Which language do you use in traditional rituals?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
13. Which language do you use in agriculture (farm activities)?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
14. Which language do you use in shops?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
15. Which language do you use in markets?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
16. Which language do you use in monthly open markets?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
17. Which language do you use in hospitals/dispensaries?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
Question numbers 18 – 21 are for inter married (exogamous) Kibena speakers only
18. Which language do you use for communication with your partner?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) A mixture of Kibena and Kiswahili [ ]
(d) My partner‟s language……………………….. (Mention it)
19. Do you teach your children Kibena?
(a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
20. Where do you use Kibena to communicate with your children?
(a) Home [ ] (b) In different socio – economic activities [ ] (c) I do not use
anywhere [ ]
96 21. Are your children able to use Kibena when communicating to you or the surrounding
community? (a) Yes [ ] (b) No [ ]
Question numbers 22 – 25 are for both endogamous and exogamous Kibena speakers
22. (a) Is there any importance of using Kibena in our time where Kiswahili is used for
communication by many people? (i) Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ]
23. (a) Do you feel proud for Kibena to be used for many years to come?
(i)Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ]
24. Are you responsible to transmit Kibena to children?
(i)Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ]
25. Is Kibena important in this age of globalization to the extent of transmitting it to
children?
(i)Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COOPERATION
97 APPENDIX A2: QUESTIONNAIRE IN KISWAHILI
HOJAJI
Maelekezo ya Ujazaji: Tafadhali, jaza hojaji hii kwa kuweka alama ya vema katika nafasi iliyopo katika kila namba au herufi au jaza nafasi iliyoachwa wazi pale inapotakiwa. Pia unaweza kutoa maelezo au sababu pale zinapohitajika. Kama nafasi iliyotolewa haitoshi unaweza kuandika kwenye karatasi nyingine.
Swali la 1 – 3 ni kwa ajili ya wote
1. Jinsi: Kiume [ ] Kike [ ]
2. Tafadhali onesha kundi rika lako miongoni mwa makundi rika yafuatayo:
21 – 30 [ ], 31 – 40 [ ], 41 – 50 [ ], 51 – 60 [ ], 61 – 70 [ ], 70+ [ ]
3. Una elimu ya kiwango gani?
(i) Sina elimu rasmi [ ] (ii) Elimu ya Msingi [ ] (iii) Elimu ya Kawaida ya Sekondari [ ]
(iv) Elimu ya Juu ya Sekondari [ ] (v) Elimu ya Vyuo vya Kati [ ] (vi) Elimu ya Chuo
Kikuu [ ]
Swali la kwanza la 4 – 17 ni kwa wabena wasio katika ndoa za mchanganyiko na
Makabila mengine
4. Je, unatumia lugha ngapi?
(i) Moja [ ] (ii) Mbili [ ] (iii) Tatu [ ] (iv) Zaidi ya tatu ………………… (Zitaje)
5. Lugha yako ya kwanza (lugha mama) ni ipi?
(i) Kibena [ ] (ii) Kiswahili [ ] (iii) Lugha nyingine………………………… (Itaje)
6. Je, unaongea Kibena kwa ufasaha? (i) Ndiyo [ ] (ii) Hapana [ ]
7. Je, unawarithisha (kuwafundisha) watoto wako lugha ya Kibena?
(a) Ndiyo [ ] (b) Hapana [ ]
8. Unatumia lugha ipi kwa mawasiliano na watoto wako mkiwa nyumbani?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
98 9. Kwenye mazishi mnatumia lugha ipi?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
10. Kwenye harusi mnatumia lugha ipi?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
11. Lugha ipi mnaitumia katika sehemu za ibada?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
12. Lugha ipi mnaitumia kwenye matambiko?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
13. Lugha ipi mnaitumia kwenye kilimo (shambani)?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
14. Lugha ipi mnaitumia madukani?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
15. Lugha ipi mnaitumia sokoni?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
16. Lugha ipi mnaitumia minadani?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
17. Lugha ipi mnaitumia hospitalini?
(a) Kibena [ ] (b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ]
Swali la 18 – 21 ni kwa ajili ya wabena wenye ndoa za mchanganyiko na Makabila mengine
18. Lugha ipi unaitumia kwa mawasiliano na mwenza wako (mume/mke wako)? (a)
Kibena [ ]
(b) Kiswahili [ ] (c) Mchanganyiko wa Kibena na Kiswahili [ ] (d) Lugha ya mwenzangu ……………………….. (Itaje)
19. Je, unawafundisha watoto wako Kibena? (a) Ndiyo [ ] (b) Hapana [ ]
99 20. Je, unatumia Kibena wapi kwa mawasiliano na watoto wako? (a) Nyumbani [ ]
(b) Katika shughuli mbalimbali za kijamii na kiuchumi [ ] (c) Situmii popote [ ]
21. Je, watoto wako wanaweza kuwasiliana nawe au na jamii inayowazunguka Kibena?
(a) Ndiyo [ ] (b) Hapana [ ]
Swali la 22 – 25 ni kwa ajili ya wote
22. (a) Je, kuna umuhimu wowote wa kutumia Kibena kwa wakati huu ambapo Kibena kinatumiwa kwa mawasiliano na watu wengi? (i) Ndiyo [ ] (ii) Hapana [ ]
23. (a) Je, unajisikia fahari kuona Kibena kinatumika kwa miaka mingi ijayo?
(i) Ndiyo [ ] (ii) Hapana [ ]
24. Je, unawajibu wa kuwarithisha watoto Kibena? (i) Ndiyo [ ] (ii) Hapana [ ]
25. Je, Kibena kina umuhimu wowote katika kipindi hiki cha utandawazi kiasi cha kuwarithisha
watoto? (i) Ndiyo [ ] (ii) Hapana [ ]
ASANTE SANA KWA USHIRIKIANO WAKO
100 100 100 APPENDIX B1: AN INTERVIEW GUIDE
The researcher’s interview was guided by the following questions;
(Questions 6 – 8 are for intermarried Bena only)
1. From your daily experience/observation, do Bena of all age groups use Kibena for communication?
2. What are the bases for your answer?
3. Being one of the speakers of Kibena, do you help your children to learn Kibena in order to ensure its continuity to younger generations?
4. If you teach them, where do you use it when communicating to them? (Focus on relevant domains of language use for this study)
5. (a) Do your children speak Kibena fluently when communicating in different domains?
(b) If they do not speak Kibena fluently, what are the reasons?
6. Being intermarried Bena, do speak Kibena to your children?
7. If you do, where do you use it (focus on relevant domains of this study)?
8. (a) Which language do you speak to your spouse? (Kibena, Kiswahili, your spouse‟s language or another language)?
(b) Does your spouse support the idea of teaching your children Kibena?
9. (a) In your opinion, is Kibena still important to be taught to your children to date?
(b) What are the reasons for your answer?
10. (a) On your view, do children support the idea of learning Kibena?
(b) What are the reasons for your answer?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COOPERATION
101 101 101 APPENDIX B2: AN INTERVIEW GUIDE IN KISWAHILI
MUONGOZO WA MAHOJIANO
Mahojiano ya mtafiti yaliongozwa na maswali yafuatayo;
(Maswali namba 6 – 9 yalilenga wabena walio katika ndoa za mchanganyiko tu)
1. Katika uchunguzi/uzoefu wako wa kila siku, je, wabena wa rika zote hutumia
lugha ya Kibena kwa mawasiliano?
2. Nini msingi wa jibu lako?
3. Ukiwa miongoni mwa wazungumzaji wa lugha ya Kibena, je, unawasaidia watoto
wako kujifunza lugha ya Kibena ili kuhakikisha muendelezo wa lugha hii kwa
vizazi vipya?
4. Kama unafanya hivyo, je, unaitumia wapi unapowsiliana nao? (Msisitizo ni
kwenye nyanja muhimu kwa utafiti huu).
5. (a) Je, watoto wako wanaongea Kibena kwa ufasaha wanapowasiliana katika
nyanja mbalimbali?
(b) Kama hawawezi kukitumia Kibena kwa ufasaha, je, ni kwa nini?
6. Wewe kama Mbena uliye katika ndoa ya mchanganyiko, je, unaongea Kibena na
watoto wako?
7. Kama unaongea nao, Je, unaitumia wapi? (Msisitizo ni kwenye nyanja muhimu
za utafiti huu)
8. (a) Je, unaongea na mwenza wako kwa lugha gani? (Kibena, Kiswahili, lugha
yake, au lugha nyingine?)
(b) Je, mwenzako anaunga mkono wazo la kuwafundsha watoto wenu Kibena?
9. (a) Kwa maoni yako, Je, Kibena bado kina umuhimu wa kufundishwa kwa watoto
wako kwa nyakati hizi?
(b) Kwa sababu gani?
102 102 102 10. (a) Kwa mtazamo wako, je, watoto wanaunga mkono wazo la kujifunza Kibena?
(b) Kwa sababu gani?
103 103 103 APPENDIX C1: PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION GUIDE
The researcher used the following guide for participant observation;
i. Observing how parents transmit Kibena to their children in specified domains
ii. Looking at how different age groups use Kibena fluently in specified
domains.
iii. Observing the signs of Kibena endangerment especially by looking at its
intergenerational cut – off signs by comparing its use between the older and
younger generations in specified domains.
iv. To observe the role of inter married Bena couples on transmitting Kibena to
younger generations through its use in specified domains.
v. Looking at Bena speakers‟ attitudes on their language basing on their
willingness to use it in their daily life.
104 104 104 APPENDIX C2: PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION GUIDE IN KISWAHILI
MUONGOZO WA UCHUNGUZI SHIRIKI
Mtafiti alitumia muongozo ufuatao kwa uchunguzi shiriki;
i. Kuchuchunguza jinsi wazazi wanavyowarithisha watoto wao lugha ya Kibena
katika nyanja zilizobainishwa.
ii. Kuangalia namna ambavyo makundi rika mbalimbali yanavyotumia Kibena
ipasavyo katika nyanja zilizobainishwa.
iii. Kuchunguza dalili hatarishi za lugha ya Kibena hasa kwa kuangalia kukatika
kwa urithishaji wake kwa kizazi kipya kwa kulinganisha matumizi yake
miongoni mwa wazee, vijana na watoto katika nyanja zilizobainishwa.
iv. Kuchunguza wajibu wa wabena waliopo katika ndoa za mchanganyiko katika
kuirithisha lugha yao kwa kizazi kipya kwa kuitumia katika nyanja
mbalimbali za mawasiliano.
v. Kuangalia mtazamo wa wazungungumzaji wa Kibena juu ya lugha yao kwa
kujikita katika utayari wa kukitumia katika shughuli zao za kila siku.
105 105 105