LANGUAGE POLICY AND THE PROMOTION OF KISWAHILI IN UGANDA
Jjingo Caesar
M.A. (Linguistics) Dissertation
University of Dar es Salaam
September, 2011 LANGUAGE POLICY AND THE PROMOTION OF KISWAHILI IN UGANDA
By
Jjingo, Caesar
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (Linguistics)
of the University of Dar es Salaam
University of Dar es salaam
September, 2011 i
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that he has read and hereby recommend for acceptance by the University of Dar es salaam a dissertation entitled: Language Policy and the
Promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda, in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Linguistics) of the University of Dar es salaam.
……………………………………….
Prof. Yohana P. Msanjila
(SUPERVISOR)
Date:………………………………
ii
DECLARATION
AND
COPYRIGHT
I, Jjingo, Caesar, 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 similar or any other degree award.
Signature …………………………….
This dissertation is a copyright material under the Berne Convention, the Copyright
Act 1999 and other international and national enactments, in that behalf, on intellectual property. It may not be reproduced by any means, in full or part, except for short extracts in fair dealings, for research or private study, critical scholarly review or discourse with an acknowledged, without the written permission of the
Directorate of Graduate Studies, on behalf of both the author and the University of
Dar es salaam. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I thank Our Lord the Almighty for the glorious gift of life that has always provided and protected to allow me to be in good health and peaceful throughout my study period. May his name be glorified always.
Secondly, I take this opportunity to thank Makerere University for the partial facilitation I was accorded to complete my Masters of Linguistics programme at the
University of Dar es salaam in Tanzania. I can not forget to express my heartfelt feelings to thank the staff members of the School of Education, more so those from the Language Department for their constant critics and positive contributions they made towards the initial stages of the writing of this dissertation. I say thank you all.
I further express my appreciations to my supervisor, Professor Yohana P. Msanjila for his guidance and constructive critics throughout the entire process of writing this dissertation. He is my role model not only in the field of sociolinguistics, but also in the field of research and publication. Socially, he is more of an academic friend whom through constant consultations, has boosted up my thinking and intellectual perspectives, through constructive laughs and his jovial facial expressions. Prof.
Msanjila you have shown me the way, allow me to go through it and pass over it.
I also extend my sincere gratitude to the community members of the University of
Dar es salaam, especially those from the Department of Foreign Languages and
Linguistics, and the Institute of Kiswahili Studies whose cooperation and understanding were of great value in the completion of this dissertation. Again, I would like to thank all my lecturers and classmates (2007/2010). Your academic and iv
social continuous support not only in lecture rooms and offices, but also outside the learning environment, comforted my stay in Tanzania especially in the city of Dar es salaam.
In a very special way I extend my sincere appreciations to the extended family of Mr. and Mrs. Onesmo, K. Nkomollah, for its vital role it played to raise me up and be what I am today. I say Asanteni sana. More to that, I say thank you to my longtime loving friends and families, who morally, socially, spiritually, physically and financially shared important views and ideas during my study period, these include; the families of Mr. and Mrs. C. Mutunzi, Mr. and Mrs. G. Nyanguru, Mr. and Mrs.
J. Dyegula, Mr. and Mrs. J. Saleh, Mr and Mrs. M. Lusigi, the children of the Late
Darlington Kimata, and, the extended family of Frank Shayo (Mangi-Kichefuchefu),
My friends who include; Twalibu Said (mzee wa Kichina), Grasiana Marseli
Shirima, Kintu Jimmy, Musoke David (Mukooo), Gireon Mture, Joyce
Nguma(Rasta), Nanfuka Betty, Nkeretanyi Brian, Nkalubo Stephen, Kiti Chonga,
Paul Chonga, Patrick Mtana, Francis Kato, Ssonko Victoria, Mukasa Rogers, Jjunju
Fred Paul Mark, Primitiva Rutambukage Mutungi, Hassan Khalfan, Levina
Ruhikula, and Edyth Kezia Simiyu.
My appreciations to the authors, editors and programmers of different books, journals, articles and websites I perused through while writing this dissertation. Your academic and intellectual contribution provided me a backup to my study; your collective brains have positively and widely contributed towards the completion of this dissertation. v
Lastly, I am grateful to my extended family for the love and prayers you had for me to accomplish my studies far away from you. I say Mwebale Nyoo.
vi
DEDICATION
To our extended family.
vii
ABSTRACT
This study is about the language policy and the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda. It was carried out from Kampala, the capital city of Uganda, with an aim of ascertaining challenges Kiswahili language incurs in its promotion. The study was designed to address three issues. Firstly, to identify the roles of Kiswahili at national and international levels, Secondly, to identify factors that hinder the promotion of
Kiswahili in Uganda, and lastly, the identification of factors which are likely to promote Kiswahili language in Uganda. The study purposely selected 15 interviewees from 15 institutions that take a leading role in the formulation, facilitation, coordination and implementation of Uganda’s national cultural policy.
Other than interview technique, the study also used documentary analysis technique to collect its data. The use of Revised Four-Fold Model (1983) championed by Einar
Haugen, provided constructive theoretical framework that guided the study to the attainment of its desired findings.
The findings revealed that, Kiswahili is still a language of the armed forces, trade and commerce, a school subject, a language of the media and regional lingua franca among others. It has been genuinely maintained by LPP makers and LP implementers that, the government of Uganda is in position not only to facilitate and promote multilingualism, but also to establish and support the formation of Kiswahili language committees, Kiswahili National Council, changing of people’s attitudes towards Kiswahili through education and national campaigns, invitation of foreign technocrats of Kiswahili to assist in the implementation of Kiswahili programmes.
And lastly, the study proposes alternative ways in which Kiswahili language could be viii
promoted in Ugandan Multilingual settings such as; among others, the creation of good and clear working relationship between LPP makers and LP implementers, the revival of the closed PTCs and increase in the number of NTCs, so as to increase the number of Kiswahili teachers in the country.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Certification ………………………………………..…………….…….……. i
Declaration and Copyright …………………………………………….…….. ii
Acknowledgements...………………………………..…………….…….…… iii
Dedication ………………………………………..……………….…….…… vi
Abstract…. ………………………………………..…………….…….……… vii
Table of Contents…...... ix
List of Tables …...... xvi
List of Figures…...... xvii
List of Abbreviations...... xviii
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ………………….. 1
1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………....…….. 1
1.1 Language Profile of Uganda ………………………………………… 2
1.2 Statement of the Problem ……………………………………..…….. 8
1.3 General Objective ………………………………………………….... 9
1.3.1 Specific Objectives ………………………………….…….………… 9
1.4 Research Questions ………………………………………………….. 10
1.5 Significance of the Study ……………………………………………. 10
1.6 Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………… 10
1.7 Organisation of the Study …………………………………………… 11 x
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………. 13
2.0 Introduction …………………………………………………….……. 13
2.1 Language Planning and Language Policy……………………………. 13
2.2 Specific Literature Review …………………………………………… 25
2.2.1 Kenya’s Language Policy and the Promotion of
Indigenous Languages ………………………………………………... 26
2.2.2 Tanzania’s Language Policy and the Promotion of
Indigenous Languages ………………………………………..……… 30
2.2.3 Language Policy of Burkina Faso and the Promotion of
Indigenous Languages ………………………….…………………… 34
2.2.4 Uganda’s Language Policy and the Promotion of
Indigenous Language ………………………………………………. 35
2.2.4.1 Kiswahili and Language Use in the Education
System of Uganda …………………………………………………… 37
2.2.4.2 The Institute of Languages ………………………………………….. 42
2.2.5 Studies on Language Policy and the Promotion of Indigenous
Languages in Uganda ………………………………………..……… 45
2.2.5.1 Ndoleriire’s (1996) Study …………………………………………… 46
2.2.5.2 Mpuga’s (2003) Study ………………………………………………. 47
2.2.5.3 Majola’s (2005) and Hirome’s (2008) Studies……………………… 47
2.2.5.4 Kabananukye and Kwagala’s (2007) Study………………………… 48 xi
2.2.5.5 Kawachi’s (2010) Study ………………….…………………………. 49
2.2.5.6 Nabirye’s (2010) Study …………………………………..…………. 51
2.3 Research Gap ……………………………………………..…………. 52
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 54
3.0 Introduction ………………………………………………….……… 54
3.1 Research Design…..………………………………………….……… 54
3.2 Identification of Research Paradigm…..…………………….……… 55
3.3 Area of the Study…………………………………………….……… 56
3.3.1 Population Sample and Sampling Procedures……………….……… 56
3.4 Data Collection Methods…………………………………….……… 57
3.4.1 Documentary Analysis …………………………..………….……… 58
3.4.2 Interview Method ………………………..………………….……… 59
3.4.3 Interview Guide ………………………………………………..…… 60
3.4.4 Response Rate ………………………………………………………. 61
3.4.5 Gender Issues …………………………………………………….…. 61
3.5 Data Analysis and Interpretation …………………………………… 61
3.6 Research Ethics ……………………………………………………… 62
3.7 Limitations of the Study ………………….…………………………. 63
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS...…….. 64
4.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………….. 64
4.1 The Roles of Kiswahili at National and International Levels ……… 64 xii
4.1.1 Kiswahili as an East African Language …………………….………. 65
4.1.2 Kiswahili as a Regional Lingua Franca ………………….…………. 66
4.1.3 Kiswahili as the Most Developed Language as Compared to Other
Indigenous Languages of Uganda ……………………….…………. 66
4.2 The Roles of Kiswahili at Uganda …………………….…………… 67
4.2.1 Kiswahili as a School Subject ……………………………………… 67
4.2.2 Kiswahili as a Language of the Armed Forces of Uganda ………… 68
4.2.3 Kiswahili Role Still a Myth …………………………………………. 69
4.2.4 Kiswahili as a Commercial Language………………………………. 69
4.3 Factors that Hinder the Promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda
According to Language Policy Makers ……………………………… 70
4.3.1 Teaching of Kiswahili language in the Ugandan Education Levels… 71
4.3.2 Unpopular Language Policy of Uganda …………………..………… 72
4.3.3 Limited Coordination for both LPP Makers and LP Implementers … 72
4.3.4 Dysfunctional District Language Committees ………………………. 74
4.3.5 Failure of Campaigns Towards Kiswahili Popularizations…………... 75
4.3.6 Little Financial Support for the Promotion of Kiswahili……………. 76
4.4 Factors that Hinder the Promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda
According to Language Policy Implementers/ Promoters …………. 78
4.4.1 Unpopular Language Policy of Uganda …………………….………. 78
4.4.2 Low Recruitment of Kiswahili Teachers on the Government Payroll 79 xiii
4.4.3 Absence of Kiswahili Literature and Publications from Uganda …… 79
4.4.4 Negative Attitude Towards Kiswahili Language...…………………… 80
4.4.5 Unrecognized Kiswahili Audiences ……….………………………… 81
4.4.6 Few Kiswahili Hours per Week ……………………………………… 81
4.4.7 Shortage of Kiswahili Manpower ………….………………………… 82
4.5 Language Policy Makers Responses on Factors which are Likely to
Promote Kiswahili in Ugandan Context for a Sound Language Policy 84
4.5.1 Urgency to Invite Foreign Language Specialists …………..………… 84
4.5.2 Establishment of Kiswahili National Council …………..…………… 85
4.6 Language Policy Implementers’/Promoters’ Responses Factors
which are Likely to Promote Kiswahili in Ugandan Context for
a Sound Language Policy ……….………………………...………… 86
4.7 Strategies to Overcome Challenges ………………… ……………… 87
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS …… 90
5.0 Introduction …………………….…………………………………… 90
5.1 The Roles of Kiswahili at National and International Levels ……… 90
5.1.1 Kiswahili as an East African Language …………………………..… 90
5.1.2 Kiswahili as a Regional Lingua Franca …..…………………………. 91
5.1.3 Kiswahili as the Most Developed Language Compared to
Other Indigenous Language of Uganda ……..……………………… 91
5.2 The Roles of Kiswahili at Uganda ………………………………….. 91 xiv
5.2.1 Kiswahili as a School Subject ……………………………………….. 92
5.2.2 Kiswahili as a Language of the Armed Forces of Uganda …………. 92
5.2.3 Kiswahili as a Commercial Language ……………………………… 92
5.2.4 Kiswahili as a Media Language …….………………………………. 93
5.3 Factors that Appear to Hinder the Promotion of Kiswahili
in Uganda According to Language Policy Makers ………………… 93
5.3.1 The Teaching of Kiswahili in the Ugandan Education Levels …… 93
5.3.2 Limited Co-ordination between LPP Makers and LP Implementers 94
5.3.3 Dysfunctional District Language Committees for Kiswahili ……… 94
5.3.4 Failure of Campaigns Towards Kiswahili Promotion ……………… 95
5.3.5 Replacement of Language Specialists by Non-Language specialists 95
5.3.6 Little Financial Support for the Promotion of Kiswahili ………..… 96
5.3.7 The Closure of Primary Teachers’ Colleges ……….……………… 96
5.4 Factors which are Likely to Promote Kiswahili in the Ugandan
Context for a Sound Language Policy ……………………………… 97
5.4.1 Invitation of Foreign Language Specialists for Kiswahili …………. 97
5.4.2 Establishment of the Kiswahili National Council …………………. 97
5.4.3 Change of Language Attitudes towards Kiswahili …..…..………… 98
5.4.4 Putting the Language into Practice …………………………………. 98
5.4.5 Use of Code Switching and Code Mixing ………………………….. 98
5.5 The Contribution of the Study ……………………………………... 99 xv
5.6 Recommendations ………………………………………………….. 99
5.6.1 Kiswahili as a Regional Language …..…………………...………… 100
5.6.2 Insufficient Kiswahili Teachers in Uganda …..……….....…….…… 100
5.6.3 Kiswahili should be a Compulsory Subject in Primary
and Secondary Education …..…………………...………………… 101
5.6.4 Working Relationship between LPP Makers and LP Implementers ... 101
5.6.5 Establishment of the Kiswahili National Council …..……………… 101
5.6.6 Formation of Structural Framework for Kiswahili Promotion …..… 102
5.6.7 The Bid for the Annual Kiswahili Day Celebrations …..……..……. 102
5.6.8 Regarding the Involvement of Ugandan Language Specialists …… 102
5.7 Further Research Areas …..………………………………………… 103
REFERENCES...……………………………………….……………..…… 104
APPENDICES
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Percentage of Ugandans who are able to Hold Conversations
in Kiswahili, Luganda and English ………..……….………. 21
Table 1.2 Percentage of People who use Kiswahili and English in East
African by 2000 ………..……………………………….……. 22
Table 2.3 Kiswahili as a Subject in Schools’ Timetables ….…………... 38
Table 2.4 Intended Courses to be offered by MUSLAC …………….…. 44
Table 3.5 Number of Institutions Included in the Population Sample …. 57
Table 3.6 The Number of Interviewees who were sampled ……….…… 60
Table 4.7 Distribution of Time for Kiswahili Teachings and Programs ... 82
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Map of Uganda Showing the Different Indigenous Language
Families and the Individual Languages ……………………… 4
xviii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AU African Union
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
BAKIKE Baraza la Kiswahili Kenya
BAKITA Baraza la Kiswahili la Taifa
BAKIZA Baraza la Kiswahili Zanzibar
BP British Protectorate
CAA Constitution Amendment Act
CASAS Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society
CCM Chama Cha Mapinduzi
CoK Constitution of Kenya
DLCs District Language Committees
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EAC East African Community
EAKC East Africa Kiswahili Council
EARIC East Africa Research Information Center
EATV East African Television
ELWE Easy Language Writer’s Enterprises
ESA Educational Standards Agency
ESSP Education Sector Strategic Plan
HDR Human Development Report xix
ICESCR International Convent on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
IKS Institute of Kiswahili Studies
ITV Independent Television
KANU Kenya African National Union
KBC Kenya Broadcasting Cooperation
KCC Kampala City Council
KIU Kampala International University
KMTC Kibuli Muslim Teachers College
KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
K & K Kabananukye and Kwagala
LDC Least Developed Country
LoT Languages of Tanzania Project
LTIs Language Training Institutes
LP Language Policy
LPP Language Planning and Language Policy
LWC Language of Wide Communication
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MoIYCS Ministry of Information, Youths, Culture and Sports
MoES Ministry of Education and Sports
MoEAA Ministry of East African Affairs xx
MoGLSD Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development
MoI Medium of Instruction
MoLG Ministry of Local Government
MAK Makerere University
MASLAC Makerere University School of Languages and Culture
NBoS National Bureau of Statistics
NCDC National Curriculum Development Centre
NCHE National Council for Higher Education
NCST National Council for Science and Technology
NGOs Non-Government Organisations
NLoU National Library of Uganda
NPCH National Policy on Culture and Heritage
NTCs National Teachers’ Colleges
N.d Not dated
NSA New South Africa
OAU Organisation of African Union
PANSALB Pan South Africa Language Board
PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PTCs Primary Teachers’ Colleges
QAS Quality Assurance Standards
R Radio xxi
RBPoUD Research Bureau and Publications of the University of Dar es Salaam
RESSP Revised Education Sector Strategic Plan
RoK Republic of Kenya
SDSSIP Social Development Sector Strategic Investment Plan
TANU Tanganyika African National Unity
TATAKI Taasisi ya Taaluma za Kiswahili
TNCP Tanzania National Cultural Policy
TUKI Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili
TV Television
UACE Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education
UBC Uganda Broadcasting Corporation
UBoS Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UDSM University of Dar es salaam
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNEB Uganda National Examinations Board
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNCC Uganda National Cultural Centre
UNCP Uganda National Cultural Policy
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UPE Universal Primary Education xxii
URoT United Republic of Tanzania
USE Universal Secondary Education
UTA Uganda Teachers’ Association
WBS Wavamunno Broadcasting Station
WCNH World Cultural and Natural Heritage
ZIKFL Zanzibar Institute of Kiswahili and Foreign Languages 1
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.0 Introduction
This study is about the language policy and the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda. It aims at investigating the challenges that Kiswahili language faces in its promotion in
Uganda. The results of the study are intended not only to identify the degree at which
Kiswahili language is being promoted in Uganda, but also to address and answer a sociolinguistic questions: these are what factors hinder the promotion of Kiswahili in
Uganda, and what are other available alternatives in promoting Kiswahili language in the Ugandan multilingual context?
On that basis therefore, this Chapter consists of three major sections. The first section, presents the language profile of Uganda, with the aim of presenting the
Ugandan sociolinguistic overview in order to provide a contextual basis of the study.
The second section describes the statement of the problem, the objectives of the study, the research questions and the significance of the study. And, the last section describes the theoretical framework of the study.
Once the 5000 world’s languages and dialects are properly planned, policies formed and proper remarkable implementations are made, world’s languages will consequently subscribe to a degree of independence and survival (Katzner, 2003).
Many nations have lethargically reacted towards their language planning and language policy (henceforth, LPP) questions (ibid). This study has used abbreviation
LPP in the same sense as used by Mwansoko (1990) and Clyne (1997). To react on
LPP issues, linguistics experts and other scholars from such fields such as 2
Anthropology and Sociology to mention but a few namely Fishman, Hymes,
Gumperz, and Ervin-Tripp among others, put more emphasis on notions of language functions and use, rather than on language structures (morphology), semantics and syntax among others. This was as a result of emerging interest among the above scholars in the field of sociolinguistics between mid 1950s and early 1970s
(Christine and Tucker 2003; Msanjila et al., 2009; Spolsky, 2010).
Language is associated with quite a number of factors depending on different roles it plays, in other words, language(s) has unique characteristics which include; being a system of communication, a medium for thought, a vehicle for literacy expression, a social institution, a matter for political controversy and catalyst for national building among others (O’Grady et al., 1996; Crystal, 1997a). Basing on the above characteristics, language scholars have continuously called for languages to be planned and implemented worldwide (Ricento, 2006).
1.1 Language Profile of Uganda
Uganda, officially the Republic of Uganda, is a least developed country (LDC) positioned 144th out of 175 UN member countries (UNDP, 2005). Uganda is landlocked located in East of Africa and lies across the equator, about 800 kilometres inland from the Indian Ocean. The country is positioned in a range between 1˚ 29’
South and 4˚12’ North latitude, 29˚ 34’ East and 35˚ 0’ East longitude. UBoS survey of 2010 puts Uganda’s population at 24.2 million persons, with the population growth rate of 3.60%. 3
Uganda covers an area of 241,039 square kilometres, of which 197,323 square kilometres is covered by land, and 43,716 square kilometres is occupied by water bodies (UBoS, 2010). Uganda shares its border with Sudan in the north; the Republic of Kenya in the east; the United Republic of Tanzania in the south, and in the south- west. Uganda shares its boarder with Rwanda and with DRC (former Zaire) in the west. Uganda is covered by equatorial climatic conditions that boost and support agriculture, which is Uganda’s backbone. Ninety percent (90%) of Ugandans practice agriculture throughout the year (Hirome, 2008).
Like most developing countries especially the African states, Uganda’s LPP matters have been a problem since pre-independence. Being multilingual, with over 45 indigenous languages (Walusimbi, 1973), Uganda has two broad distinct groups of indigenous languages namely; the Nilo-Saharan languages in the north and the Bantu
(Luganda, Rutoro. etc) languages in the south. The Nilo-Saharan group is divided into two groups of languages: Western-Nilotics (Acholi, Langi. etc), Eastern-Nilotics
(Ateso, Karamajong. etc) on one side and Sudanic languages (Lugbara, Madi.etc) on the other (Ladefoged, 1971). It is maintained that, Uganda’s linguistic division between the upper (Nilo-Saharan languages) and lower (Bantu languages) is assumed to have direct bearing on the language problems and on the possibilities of solving them (EARIC, 1969; Kaji, 2004). On the other hand, English, Arabic, French,
German, Hindu and Gujarati languages were brought to Uganda through contacts with the external world in terms of trade, commerce, and education to mention but a few (King’ei, 2010).
4
Figure 1.1: Map of Uganda Showing the Different Indigenous Language Families and the Individual Languages
Source: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_map.asp?name=UG&seq=10
In 1894, Uganda became the British Protectorate (BP). The BP took over Uganda from the Chartered East African Company. According to Ladefoged (1971) the 5
signing of the 1900 Agreement, commonly known as the Buganda Agreement, between the British Government and the Buganda Kingdom, gave rise and roots to linguistic inequality in the country. The agreement favoured some languages and marginalized others. Henceforth, Uganda remained a chaotic island of “English” and
“tribal” languages as expresses by Viera (1996).
Under the 1900 agreement, English and Luganda languages, gained prominence and use compared to other languages spoken in Uganda, like: Runyankore, Rukiga, and
Lusoga among others. Uganda’s multilingual problems are similar to those faced by many developing countries in Africa. The existence of many ethnic groups complicates the entire communication which in turn increases the difficulties in social, economic, political and cultural integration and development at large
(Nsibambi, 1967).
In Uganda, English language was introduced in the government, educational system and in public life by missionary activities. It should be remembered that, each missionary mission was responsible for its own group of schools and teachers.
Language policy was closely tied to one of the fundamental aims of either the
Catholic or Protestant Mission Education, aimed to establishing literacy of language(s) in which the bible and prayer books were translated. Therefore, the language of formal school education was also the language of worship (Ssebunga,
2003; Moshi 2006).
Until mid-1920s, when most mission schools were well established, the colonial government took direct responsibility of education in Uganda. The teaching of
English was strengthened to meet colonialists’ interests of selecting Africans to serve 6
the British administration. From that time, the English language has been the MoI from nursery level to higher institutions of learning. The language has also been used in public offices, parliament, in the higher courts of law, the media, and in political gatherings among others. It is noted that, during the first decades of the twentieth century, Kiswahili1 language gained influence in Uganda as it was not only used in the armed forces, such as: prisons, the army and police forces, but was also taught in schools as a classroom subject (Ssekamwa and Lugumba, 1973; Mukama, 1989)
A point to note is that, a way back in 1928, the British Governor (Gowers) declared
Uganda a multilingual society and recommended Kiswahili language to be used in the education and administrative domains. The recommendation was received with mixed reactions from different groups of people especially Luganda speakers and naturally, who linked Kiswahili with Islamic religion and the language of the Arabs who carried out slave trade (Ssekamwa, 1997; Ssebunga, 2003; Mukuthuria, 2009).
The Baganda viewed the introduction of Kiswahili as a threat to the economic and political supremacy of their kingdom, and partly through their influence, Luganda language became a MoI in lower primary schools’ classes, mainly in Buganda region. Since then, Luganda has continuously been used in both national and private media houses, that is to say, news papers, radio stations and television networks
(Musoke, 1969 and Ssekamwa, 1971). On the same note, Msanjila et al., (2009)
1 A Bantu language used as a lingua franca by almost 25 million ethnically diverse people leaving in East Africa. It developed as a monsoon trade language, which was controlled by both Arabs and a race of Mixed Arab-Africans on the East African coast. Its spread was accompanied by the development of towns, culture, and new civilization which evolved ethnically, diverse and Islam (Tiberondwa, 1975; Benji, 1987; Rubagumya, 1991; Msanjila, 2002; Christine and Tucker, 2003) 7
noted that, in Nigeria, Igbo and Hausa languages had social conflicts that neither of the tribesmen could use the counterpart’s language, yet both languages had the status of serving as MoI, official and national language, but it is English language which has been serving in such avenues.
In line with the above, in Uganda English remained the only official and language of instruction over time. Upon Uganda's independence in 1962, English was maintained as the official language, as it was not only rooted deeply in administration, but it was also used massively in the media, and education. In addition, Uganda's ethno- linguistic diversity made it difficult to choose another language as the official language of Uganda, because many of them had not been fully developed. However, after independence, efforts to have the official language other that English language were made, and thereby Kiswahili and Luganda qualified to be the most appropriate languages.
It should be remembered that, however much Luganda was the most geographically spread language, people from both inside and outside Buganda kingdom opposed having it as a national language; because partisans felt other tribes' mispronunciation and grammar errors towards Luganda would ruin their language. Henceforth, English remained the only official language of Uganda.
Nevertheless, in 1973, during the regime of Iddi Amin, the former President of
Uganda, by decree, Kiswahili became the second official and national language
(Legère 2006b; King’ei, 2010). But it lost its official and national status in the 1995
Constitution Ndoleriire (2005). Among other issues, the constitutional article under which the question of Kiswahili is addressed, it now states as follows; 8
“1. The official language of Uganda is English.
2. Swahili shall be the second official language in Uganda to be used in such circumstances as parliament may by law prescribe.
3. Subject to this article, any other language may be used as a medium of instruction in schools or other educational institution, or for legislative, administrative or judicial purposes as parliament may by law prescribe” (Section 6). In that respect, it is evident that Kiswahili is not yet the official language of Uganda; the article only precipitates for Kiswahili to be the second official language of
Uganda. Consequently, in 2006, the Uganda’s Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social
Development, through its National Culture Policy declared Kiswahili as a second official language of Uganda (UNCP, 2006: 6). This is in line with the Uganda’s 2025
Vision that stipulates that;
Uganda’s 2025 Vision guides interventions that are aimed at achieving stable and harmonious co-existence within a socially, culturally and economically dynamic society. Key elements of this goal include recognition and enhancement of unity in diversity, national pride and dignity and respect for/and conservation of cultural heritage… (UNCP, 2006:12) In line with the ministry’s declarations, there is an opposition between the constitutional article and the ministerial statement about Kiswahili as stipulated in the Uganda National Cultural Policy which states that,
Language is the means of expressing the creative arts of orature and literature. Uganda has a rich variety of indigenous languages and dialects. English is the official language and Kiswahili is the second official language. (UNCP, 2006:4)
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Uganda has two official languages, namely; English and Kiswahili (UNCP, 2006).
English has a higher status than Kiswahili in domains of use (English serves as MoI in the Ugandan education system, to mention but a few). English has achieved this 9
due to the continuous support from governments of the United Kingdom and
Uganda. Since Kiswahili qualified, was enacted to be the second official language of
Uganda, it has received little if any attention to be accommodated in the Uganda’s multilingual context, which contravene the Government White Paper (1992). As
Muyanda (1996) and Legère (2002) assert, constant use of African languages is considered as the best way forward for most Africans to fully participate in national development goals and projects in their countries. Therefore, this study intends to investigate factors that hinder the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda, and to provide practical alternatives that would reverse the situation.
1.3 General Objective
The main objective of the study was to investigate the challenges Kiswahili language faces in its promotion in Uganda.
1.3.1 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
1.3.1.1 To determine the roles of Kiswahili at national and international
levels.
1.3.1.2 To identify the factors which appear to hinder the promotion of
Kiswahili language in Uganda.
1.3.1.3 To identify factors that will promote Kiswahili in the Ugandan
context for a sound language policy.
1.4 Research Questions 10
The study was guided by the following research questions:
a) What are the Kiswahili roles at the national and international levels?
b) What factors hinder the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda?
c) How can Kiswahili language be promoted in Uganda?
1.5 Significance of the Study
The study would contribute to the empirical evidence on the issues pertaining to LPP in Uganda, hence a contribution to language scholarship. Secondly, LPP makers/planners and LP implementers/promoters, language agencies and other
NGOs would make use of the findings to make relevant decisions pertaining to LPP matters in Uganda and elsewhere. The study would create awareness of the language problems of Uganda and Africa at large, and provide alternative strategies for their social reconstruction. Also, the findings of the study would generate teaching and research materials relevant to the implementation of LP in Uganda.
1. 6 Theoretical Framework
Theoretical framework is a tool that the researcher uses to develop the understanding of the situation under study. It creates cohesion from the literature of the study with the research goals. Theoretical framework propounds the relations of interlinked concepts under study. This study uses the Revised Four-Fold Theoretical Model
(1983) championed by Einar Haugen. The Theoretical Model uses the concepts of status planning and corpus planning in the context of language planning. 11
Status planning refers to the allocation of language functions or a language variety in a given country. In Uganda, Kiswahili was given a higher status (official) than it had previously; therefore, this model is crucial to our study, because the model collectively and generally regulates the status and roles of languages in Uganda. On the other hand, corpus planning involves linguistics innovations that relate to the structure of a language(s) such as; selection and codification of norms for example; the writing of grammars, the development and standardization of orthographies, among others (Jernudd and Gupta, 1971; Fishman, 1974).
It is urged that, the development and promotion of a language(s) depends largely on the planning of its corpus. It is maintained that, even if language policy elevates the status of languages, the corpus development of that language(s) is a major step that will bring practical experience in the implementation process, such as Kiswahili in
Uganda. Although status planning and corpus planning involve different activities, the relationship between these two types of planning processes is considered as dichotonomous. In other words, status planning and corpus planning are usually complementary (Clyne, 1997).
1.7 Organisation of the Study
In line with the above aspects therefore, this study is organized into five chapters as follows: Chapter One presents background information regarding Uganda’s language situation, the objectives of the study, the research questions, and the significance of the study. Lastly the Chapter describes theoretical framework that the study uses.
Chapter Two discusses the key concepts of language planning and language policy, it reviews detailed specific literature of selected countries in line with promotion of 12
their indigenous languages, the Chapter further reviews specific studies done in
Uganda concerning language promotion and contemporary language matters, and lastly the Chapter states the research gap. Chapter Three describes the methodological approaches, methods of data collection and sources; description of the study area, lastly the chapter discusses the population sample and sampling procedures. Chapter Four presents analyses and interprets the empirical results of the study. Finally, Chapter Five concludes the findings of the study; the chapter further gives practical recommendations, and proposes room for further research. 13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This Chapter makes a review of the relevant literature on matters related to language policy and language planning, language policy and promotion of indigenous languages in order not only discern the theoretical insight of the undertaken study but also to compare Ugandan multilingual situation and that of other countries around the world. The Chapter is divided into two major sections. The first section discusses the key concepts of language policy and language planning. The second section reviews specific literature from four selected countries namely; Kenya, Tanzania,
Burkina Faso, and Uganda; and lastly the section reviews some studies that were done in Uganda in relation to the promotion of indigenous language(s) so as to identify the research gap.
2.1 Language Planning and Language Policy
According to Rubin and Jernudd (1971), Viriri (2008) and Christine and Tucker
(2003), language planning and language policy are two phenomena that are closely related and in most cases are used interchangeably, since they both deal with language use, functions and structural patterns of language(s) in a given country.
Henceforth, this study will treat the two notions inseparably.
Language planning has been defined as organized pursuit of solutions to the language problems a country has, these solutions include; the choice of linguistic medium, development and reform of writing system, and the expansion of 14
vocabulary, to mention a few (Jernudd and Gupta, 1971). Language Planning has been categorized into status planning and corpus planning. Status planning refers to a process of assigning functions such as official or national languages to a language or of a language variety in a given speech community. This determines what language(s) shall operate in what domains. On the other hand, Corpus planning is the selection and codification of norms such as the writing of grammars, the development and standardization of orthographies, among others (Jernudd and
Gupta, 1971; Abdulaziz, 1993; Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997). Henceforth, for the sake of this study, the emphasis is put on both status planning and corpus planning because; the two phenomena compliment each other.
One the other hand, Language policy (LP), which is part of language planning
(organized pursuit of solutions to language problems, typically at national level), is a statement or written document by the government, which stipulates how, when and where language(s) should be used in a society, its target is to solve language problems, such as maintenance of one language, with a superior status vis-à-vis other languages in a multilingual speech community associated with the communication patterns (Torsten and Neville, 1985; Crystal, 1997b). On that note, Mekacha (2000) suggests that, language policy has to be in line with the political, social and economic values and objectives of the society where it operates.
It is maintained that, language policy assigns language(s) roles such as medium of instruction (MoI) of different educational levels, administrative and judicial, among others. The roles cannot only be at national or international level, but they also depend on the country’s interests, and the status of a certain language(s) in a 15
particular country. It is urged that the language policy should clearly state and stipulate the different roles of each language to reduce chances of socio-linguistic conflicts, such as precedence of one language over others, to occur in that country.
Language scholars maintain that, language planning is done by the government or its agencies (parliament, ministries, law courts among others) or by any other organisations on behalf of the government. But, the implementation of language policy is done by different governmental agencies especially those in education, religious groups and non-governmental organisations (Anne-Marie, 2004). However,
Gary (n.d) argues that, in developing countries, the failure to implement LP is always associated with language planners’ concern often guided by ideological attributes of the ruling government rather than the practical possibilities of language planning dimensions of their country’s needs.
Language policy has been categorized into two types, namely; the exoglossic language policy on one side and endoglossic language policy on the other. A country is said to operationalise the exoglossic language policy when it directs a foreign language(s) to function as a formal language, national language or official language in that given country (Abdulaziz, 1993). It is maintained that in countries where exoglossic language policy operates, very few masses in the entire population hardly speak that language(s) as their first language. Such countries in Africa include;
Zambia and Uganda (English), Cameron and Ivory Coast (French), Angola and
Mozambique (Portuguese) among others (Mekacha, 2000).
On the other hand, endoglossic language policy favours indigenous language(s) within a nation to be used formally, as a national language as well as an official 16
language of a given country (Mekacha, 2000). There are very few countries in Africa with remarkable success of endoglossic language policy operation, such countries include; Tanzania with Kiswahili2 language, Ethiopia and Somalia with the Amharic language, among others. However, Abdulaziz (1993) points out that, the possibility of promoting an indigenous language in African states is always accompanied by constant threats of rivalry among the existing various language groups and dialects.
In Uganda, the rival between Kiswahili and Luganda3 might be a serious threat for the promotion of Kiswahili language in the Uganda’s multilingual setting. However, as Msanjila et al., (2009) insist, the continuous social conflicts in Rwanda, Burundi and Somalia are not a result of having a common language, but rather they are a result of the struggle for political and economical power between the ruled and their rulers, and this cannot be attributed to linguistics factors.
Cobarrubias (1983), Richard (1995) and Legère (2002) add another language policy typology known as; mixed language policy (bilingual policy); this is a language policy whereby both indigenous and foreign language(s) are promoted in the same context in a given country. A study by Lo Bianco (1987) shows that Australia practices mixed policy, it is maintained that, Australia’s national language policy retains the promotion of the English language alongside a number of its indigenous languages including Aboriginal languages (Lo Bianco, 1987).
2 A major language, it is ranked among the top six languages of the world over, and has more than 100 million speakers (Benji, 1987) 3 From Niger-Congo (Eastern Bantu group of languages) having a common Morphemic structure (-ntu) in their family names. It is Uganda’s language of wider communication (LWC) belongs to the Ganda tribe (Keith, 1995), with nearly 4,130,000 speakers (Lewis, 2009) 17
In Africa, countries such as Malawi, Kenya, Uganda, Botswana, Swaziland, the
Central African Republic, Rwanda, and Burundi have opted to promote one foreign language alongside one African language at the national level, with the exception of
Uganda. Uganda declared Kiswahili language as official language, but it has continuously promoted the use of English language and, in one way or another failed to promote the use of Kiswahili language nationally (Legère, 2002).
It has been observed that, the difference between Uganda and Australia in the promotion of their language policies is viewed and reflected in the degree of equal promotion of these languages. Whereas Australia implements the mixed policy properly (Lo Bianco, 1987), in Uganda, English has a higher prestige and dominance over Kiswahili and other indigenous languages. As Gary, (n.d) asserts, the implementation of a language policy is generally constrained by; the availability of resources needed, financial funding, and school facilities such as language laboratories, language teaching materials and text books to mention but a few.
According to Noss (1971), language policy exists at three different levels in a country. These levels range from official, educational and general levels. It is argued that at the official level, the language policy determines what language(s) are to be used in public offices, administration, parliament, courts of laws, among other venues. A good example is the language policy in Uganda where English is used at this level. However, this level has not properly been functional in Uganda, especially in the public offices among other areas, where indigenous languages are spoken daily. Additionally, in the educational level, the language policy determines what language(s) are to be incorporated in the educational cycles of a country such as a 18
language of medium of instruction (MoI). In Uganda, the MoI is English in all education system of Uganda. However, for urban primary schools, the MoI is
English throughout, and in rural primary schools, the MoI from Standard one to standard three, the MoI is the language of the area and for the rest of the classes,
English remains the MoI. In Tanzania, the MoI in government primary schools is
Kiswahili while English remains the MoI in private primary and all secondary schools and at the higher institutions of learning (Mochiwa, 1998; Msanjila et al.,
2009; King’ei, 2010).
In Tanzania, Languages of Instruction have been used differently in different education levels as mentioned above. This has affected learners not only in the mastering of the languages of instruction, but also in the conceptualization of subject contents in classrooms. This situation is evident in Ugandan schools where learners especially from rural primary schools fail to understand the subject content when
English becomes the MoI (Standard 3 to Standard 7). It has been maintained that,
Tanzanian students fail to excel in their studies not only because of language barrier, but also because of insufficient English language background (Kapoli, 1988). This fact is also reported in The Citizen (9th December, 2009, pp.1-2). Furthermore,
Senkoro (2005) observes that, English language problems at the University of Dar es salaam (UDSM) deny students of engaging in fruitful dialogues with their lecturers.
According to Mwananchi (19th December, 2009, p.5), lack of the English language commands, negatively affects Tanzanian students’ performance in their examinations. 19
Lastly, the third is the general level of language policy. This is the level that dictates what language(s) are incorporated in general mass communication, business affairs, and contacts with the external world. This level of language policy is observed in most continents particularly in Africa and Asia. A good example is countries like
Japan and China, where English is not used very widely in everyday life by the
Chinese and Japanese people. In these countries, English language serves by a larger extent in certain sectors, such as; the business world and in diplomatic activities
(Karl, 1999). These countries have identified the importance, values, and principles of their indigenous languages (Chinese and Japanese). This has helped them to solve language planning problems in their countries, henceforth, their remarkable degree in socio-economical, cultural and political advancements perspectives of these countries.
It is worth noting that, countries like Uganda, Malawi, Kenya and Zambia still use language policies which were first formulated by colonialists, and later declared either constitutionally or by presidential decrees, as official language(s) based on the plans to accomplish rulers’ needs, interest and satisfactions in such countries
(Msanjila et al., 2009). The whole of Africa, more so, countries in the south of the
Sahara have been subjected to colonial language policies. These countries use
English, French among others as their official language(s), to function as language(s) of MoI from nursery to the tertiary institutions; and even in public offices, among other venues (Batibo, 2005; Anchimbe, 2006; Djité, 2008).
Language scholars maintain that, a continuous use of colonialists’ languages in different domains can cause a massive population to skirmish. It is noted that, in 20
1976 South Africa recorded a national-students’ riots due to continuous use of colonial languages (English and Afrikaans) as a MoI4 in which students died
(Christine and Tucker, 2003; Neville, n.d). It is worth noting that, the massive negligence of many native (indigenous) African languages for English, French,
Portuguese, viewed such languages as potential for science and technological developments, and mentality is believed to have occurred immediately after the attainment of political independence of such African countries (Kaddu, 1983;
Msanjila et al., 2009).
It has been agreed that, the success of any language policy, is measured by the effectiveness of its implementation processes, these processes are reflected in the equal treatment of all languages especially languages with equal status, and language(s) that qualify to be in a given status. In Uganda, Kiswahili language qualified to be another official language of Uganda. Concurrently, efforts and reforms to implement language of education policy have to be followed, in the processes of LPP implementation. However, it is worthy noting that, such reforms are always neglected or not spelled out well in the process of language planning.
Bamgbose (1991 as cited in Karl 1999) maintains that for a language policy to be well implemented, series of factors have to be positively considered. These include;
Attested language(s) must have a base of potential speakers.
Existence of political will to enhance linguistic tendencies in the country.
A country must have a very strong government support to implement language policy decisions.
4 A change of the MoI from English to Afrikaans, neither of which was a native language 21
In the African continent, it is observed that, there are very few countries which have fulfilled the above factors. Such countries include Ethiopia, Central African
Republic, Tanzania, and Somalia. Meanwhile, there are some few countries that have shown little success in fulfilling the above factors. These include Uganda, Kenya,
Senegal and Congo Brazzaville, to mention a few (Legère, 2002). Namusisi (2000) and Mufwene (2001) argue that, the survival of any language depends on its strength to productive socio-economic survival of its users. To attest the above criterion,
Uganda as a country, has potential speakers of Kiswahili language as exemplified in
Table 1.1
Table 1.1: Percentage of Ugandans who are able to Hold Conversations in
Kiswahili, Luganda and English
Languages Gender Kiswahili Luganda English Male 52 51 28 Female 18 28 13 Total 70 79 41 Source: Ladefoged (1971).
It should be remembered that, the above figure includes the 16% of the population that speak Luganda as their first language. The above table indicates that, as a second language to Ugandans, Kiswahili speakers double the number of English speakers.
Accordingly, the above data were recorded approximately 40 years ago. Therefore,
Bamgbose’s (1991) last two factors (Refer to Bamgbose, 1991, above Table 1.1) would be applicable in this context, if Ugandan’s language planners and policy makers observed and recommended for the implementation of the Ladefoged’s
(1971) findings as shown in Table1.1. 22
Language planners accept the fact that due to stigmatization and awareness campaigns advocacy on the promotion of indigenous languages worldwide, the
Kiswahili percentage rate might have even gone higher in Uganda by now, like elsewhere around East Africa. Kiswahili language has witnessed a rapid growth regionally and internationally, compared to international languages such as English,
Spanish and French among others (Amidu 1995; Mazrui and Mazrui, 1995 as cited in
Ogechi, 2002, Mwananchi 9th December 2009, p.3). Such facts have been observed and recorded from the following E.A countries only as shown in Table 1.2
Table 1.2: Percentage of People who use Kiswahili and English in East African by 2000
Languages Countries Kiswahili English Kenya 80 20 Uganda 50 20 Tanzania 100 10 Source: Kiango (2002).
As Moshi (2006) admits; there have been Massive promotion programmes of
Kiswahili language even in Francophone countries that share same territories with
Uganda like Rwanda and DRC. This has been apparent even in Burundi, as well as in
Kenya and Tanzania.
Initially, in South Africa, there was no policy to denigrating the African languages, there were deliberate and systematic attempts to modernize, develop and spread the knowledge of indigenous languages. However, after the declaration of its eleven official languages, South Africa witnessed massive planning and serious equal practical implementation of all its official languages. There is urgent need in Uganda 23
to have Kiswahili declared as officially recognized language, accompanied by appropriate corpus planning. As a result, positive promotion of Kiswahili would promote people’s national identification and evolution of non-tribal and non-racial society in Uganda.
Contrary, in Uganda, Kiswahili domains are not clearly stipulated, there are no
Kiswahili newspapers, while political meetings are conducted either in English or other indigenous languages but not in Kiswahili language. Thus, the roles of English have always had precedence over those of other indigenous languages, Kiswahili exclusive. According to the Government White Paper (1992), Muyanda (1996) and
Legère (2002), constant use of African languages has been determined as the best way forward for most Africans to fully participate in the national development goals and projects.
Regionally, Kiswahili language is used in formal and informal settings in countries like; Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, DRC, northern parts of Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Malawi, and the southern parts of Somalia. It is argued the Indian Ocean
Islands of Comoros and Madagascar possess native speakers of Kiswahili language
(Mulokozi n.d.).
Regional organisations such as African Union (AU) former (OAU) and the East
African Community (EAC) recognize the use of Kiswahili as an operational language of African, although its use in the mentioned organisations is still limited.
The recognition of Kiswahili by AU and EAC has been as a result of series of
Charters, Action Plans and Declarations of Organisations of African Union (OAU) namely; The 1979 Cultural Charter, Lagos Plan of Action (1980), Language Plan 24
Action (1986), Harare Declaration (1997), and Lome Declaration (2000) to mention but a few (Mekacha, 2000).
It is argued that, the call for the use of African languages in OAU was made in
1960s, when most of the African countries were attaining political independence from colonial governments. Concurrently, in 2004, Heads of States and other
Representatives of AU from Burundi, DRC, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda,
Tanzania, Uganda, and the Comoro Islands, delivered their speeches and presentations using Kiswahili as a working language for the region. The presenters aptly accepted that, Kiswahili language fosters effective regional cooperation, and it is an efficient device for the promotion of cultural, political, social and economic developments in the region (Mekacha, 2000; Moshi, 2006).
Today, Kiswahili language, among other African languages (Nyarwanda, Zulu,
Hausa, Afrikaans and Yoruba) is used by the two renowned international computer software developers namely; Microsoft and Linux Companies in a bid to bringing
Information Communication Technologies (ICT) closer to the African users especially in the East and Central Africa. The reasons for choosing Kiswahili by such companies was that Firstly, Kiswahili is taught in higher institutions of learning compared to other African languages. Secondly, the number of Kiswahili users and speakers expand annually, hence making it a lingua franca as reported in the
Mwananchi (9th December, 2009, p. 3)
Kiswahili has gained international recognition beyond its tradition confinements
(East Africa), now Kiswahili language is used in different continents of the world namely; Europe, America and Asia among others. It is maintained that, radio stations 25
from China, Japan, India, Russia, German, United Kingdom, and Unites States of
America (USA) among others broadcast in Kiswahili. Also, it has been observed that, among other continents, in USA only, there are 47 colleges and universities that teach Kiswahili programmes (Personal communication with Professor. Paul Ogula5).
Mazrui and Mazrui (1995) and Katembo (2005) maintain that, Kiswahili has rich and varied literacy and tradition which is increasingly attracting attention from both at home and abroad. Mazrui and Mazrui (1995) argue that Kiswahili is the language that can easily be used in the coinage of new technological words.
The successful use of Kiswahili in the above mentioned companies, regional organisations, and countries, poses a challenge to the rest of the African countries that still promote the use of foreign language(s). African countries therefore, need to examine their language policies and see how indigenous languages such as Kiswahili could be accommodated, promoted and used in a wider context.
2.2 Specific Literature Review
This sub-section explores the language policies of four selected countries as mentioned earlier. The sub-section dwells deeply into the sociolinguistic situations of these countries, and makes comparisons to the Ugandan situation as far as the promotion of indigenous languages is concerned.
5 Former, Vice Chancellor- Academics at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa (Kenya), 10th December, 2010 26
2.2.1 Kenya’s Language Policy and the Promotion of Indigenous Languages
Kenya is among the East African countries. Officially, the population of Kenya stands at 38,610,097 (KNBS, 2009). Kenya’s multilingual and multicultural setting is composed of more than 40 indigenous languages, numerous dialects and other languages like English. Indigenous languages are divided into 3 major language
Phylae, namely; Bantu: Kikuyu, Kikamba, Luhya, Mijikenda, etc.; Nilotics: Luo,
Kalenjin, Maasai, Teso, etc.; and Cushitic: Burji, Galla, Dahalo, Somali, etc. (NPCH,
2009).
Unlike English, Kiswahili, and major indigenous languages in Kenya, a good number of small indigenous languages have not been described, these languages do not have written orthographies due to the fact that, they have a smaller number of speakers, thus, they tend to be used only in interethnic communication as well as in homestead.
On the other hand, the government of Kenya has directed its efforts in the creation of environment within which among others, non-verbal and sign language are strengthened (Wendo, 2009).
Both language and educational policies have been considered in both pre and post- colonial Kenya. Like many other African countries, the Republic of Kenya still uses its colonial master’s language policy (Wendo, 2009). Kenya opted to use triglossic language policy like Tanzania; English language has been its official language, whereas Kiswahili serves as its national language and the indigenous languages are used at inter-ethnic level. Kiswahili is a compulsory subject in primary school together with Mathematics and English. It is maintained that, Kiswahili was the best 27
done Subject in the 2010, as indicated in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary
Education results (personal communication with Professor. Paul Ogula)
It is worth noting that, before 1986, Kiswahili language was taught as a subject but was never examined, under such circumstance, the government was reluctant to train
Kiswahili teachers, hence its failure to strengthen Kiswahili promotion countrywide.
This can be attributed to lack of adequate legislation protecting and promoting
Kenya’s languages despite UNESCO’s efforts in various fora to provide direction and enforceable policy under the Universal Declaration of Language Rights (NPCH,
2009).
Since the colonial era, the Kenyan education system has not been supportive towards development of the indigenous languages, due to lack of standard writing systems of these languages. In fact, it is maintained that, the first recorded languages used the
Latin orthography. Additionally, Kiswahili has been the only prioritized language, since it is spoken as a first language by some people off the Kenyan coast, and also as the second language to many Kenyans. Thus, colonialists introduced indigenous languages as MoI in the first three years of primary school, Kiswahili in the 4th and
5th years, and then English remained the MoI in higher education (Whiteley, 1974;
Wendo, 2009). Henceforth, the National Governing Council of the Kenya African
National Union (KANU) officially recognised Kiswahili6 as Kenya’s national language in August 1969 (Mugambi, 2008).
6 A neutral language from causing disenchantment with a least degree of controversial 28
Initially, English language was for official purposes, then, the Kiswahili language was for inter-ethnic communication and indigenous languages were for both intra and inter ethnic communication and for use at home. But due to urbanization, both
Kiswahili and English have been competing for functions in Kenyan triglossic situation and this has marginalised the position of indigenous languages.
Presently, Kiswahili language functions alongside English language in the same domains such as in the parliament, religious functions, radio stations, television broadcasting and in public service. English has remained the MoI in the entire education system and Kiswahili is a compulsory subject in primary schools, and is being taught as any other school subjects in secondary and tertiary institutions. On the other hand, the government proposes to promote Kiswahili as MoI in schools and be placed as an official and national language of Kenya (CoK, 2010; NPCH, 2009).
In line with the above, the Commission of Higher Education has directed all higher learning institutions to introduce Kiswahili degree courses i.e. B.A (Kiswahili and
Communication) come 2011. This was aimed not only at reducing the high rate use of code mixing and code switching in the country, but it was also intended to improve the Kiswahili communication skills among the graduates. The formation of
Quality Assurance Standards (QAS), acts as a watchdog in the inspection of schools to improve the teaching and learning of Kiswahili language. However, it is urged that, the British Government, through the British Council has continuously promoted the English language in Kenya’s education system, through the provision of basic and standard teaching materials, training courses for English teachers from all levels. 29
This has caused deterioration of students’ knowledge of their first language(s)
(Mugambi, 2008).
Kenya’s Education language policy between 1953 and 1957 dropped Kiswahili from lower classes, with the exception of areas where Kiswahili was the mother tongue.
English was introduced in lower classes, and was supported by The Prator-Hutasoit
Commission, hence, the consolidation of the English hegemony in Kenya. However, in 1964 the Ominde Commission revealed that many Kenyans favoured English as
MoI, from primary to university (Wendo, 2009).
It, however, emphasized and championed the use of mother tongue and Kiswahili in the education system at different levels and locality (ibid). Concurrently, in 1967, the
Kenya Institute of Education produced books in various mother tongues and
Kiswahili inclusive. Kiswahili and mother tongues were announced as languages of adult education. It is maintained that, between 1979 and 1981, Kenyan curriculum developers were sent to Tanzania for short course, with the aim of finding out the best way to accommodate Kiswahili in the Kenyan schools’ curriculum. However,
Kiswahili as a language, its promotions has been lagging behind as opposed to the promotion of English language in the schools’ curriculum. In the schools’ timetables, while English language was allocated 8-10 periods out of 40 a week, Kiswahili language was allotted only 3 periods (Camitta, 1993).
Currently, English is the only language in which government documents and laws are written. It is maintained that government servants must have a good command of
English. The law compels the private sector to keep their records, books of accounts, legal documents among other things in the English version. Kiswahili and other 30
indigenous languages are used along with English language in courts as deemed appropriate. As Mazrui and Mazrui (1995) assert, English language can only foster national unity but Kiswahili language cements social integration among the masses.
The imposition of English in schools and other social contexts of the Republic of
Kenya have uprooted code mixing and code switching among the youths. Code mixing and code switching has positively supported communication pattern among
Kenyan youths from different ethnic backgrounds, constant use of code mixing and code switching, exhibit high degree of expatriate in both bilingualism and multilingualism. It is worth noting that constant use of code switching and code mixing mechanisms has led to the formulation and the establishment of SHENG7 in the Kenyan multilingual setting.
Code mixing and code switching has also been observed in Ugandan context, where masses mix and switch words in sentences from English to their indigenous languages and vice versa. This situation allows language users to master more that one language which brings about linguistic freedom among the language users.
2.2.2 Tanzania’s Language Policy and the Promotion of Indigenous Languages
The United Republic of Tanzania8 is a multiethnic and multilingual country. Its population estimates is nearly 39.4 million inhabitants, and a population density of
45 people per square kilometer (NBS, 2008). Tanzania hosts approximately 156 indigenous languages from four major African language Phylae, namely; Bantu
7 A pidgin with a composition of mainly Swahili and English words 8 Was formed in 1964 as a result of amalgamation of Tanganyika Mainland and Zanzibar Islands 31
(Kiswahili, Sukuma, Haya, etc.), Khoisan (Sandawe and Hadza), Afro-Asiatic (Ma’a and Iraqw), and Nilotics (Masaai, Samburu, etc.) (Massamba, 2002; Gordon, 2005;
Legère, 2007; LoT, 2009). Tanzania, like most African countries, is a house of imported languages such as English, Arabic, Hindu and Gujarati. Kiswahili stands to be the most dominant indigenous language and is privileged to be the language of wider communication (LWC) in Tanzania since pre-independence era (Rubagumya,
1991 and Rugemalira, 2005b).
Partially, the growth, spread and promotion of Kiswahili was a characteristic of the
German colonial government, and the European Christian Missions in the pre- colonial period of Tanganyika. But, much is attributed to TANU (Tanganyika
African National Union) and later Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), the ruling political party under the leadership of the Late Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere, the First
President of Independent Tanganyika, now the United Republic of Tanzania
(Msanjila et al., 2009).
During the independence struggle period, TANU used Kiswahili as a unifying language among its fighters, one such struggle was the Maji-Maji War (1905-1907) where the Germans lost to Africans. Even after independence, the President directed all official correspondents to be in Kiswahili, unless meant for international relations and diplomatic missions. Thus, the official forms and correspondences in government parastatals were in both Kiswahili and English languages; the situation was further stimulated by the 1967 Arusha Declaration that practically promoted the use of Kiswahili language throughout the country at the expense of English language in Tanzania (Rubagumya, 1991; Viera, 1996). 32
Tanzania’s National Cultural Policy among other pronouncements, stipulates that both Kiswahili and English serve as official languages of the United Republic of
Tanzania, and Kiswahili is the national language (TNCP, 1997), as was also, observed by Msanjila, (2003), Muzale and Rugemalira, (2008) and Msanjila, (2009).
This directly indicates that, Tanzania practices triglossic type of language policy, which has been in effect since independence. Henceforth, the Tanzanian government has positively observed the need to promote Kiswahili one of its indigenous languages because; Kiswahili is viewed as the only language that can act as stimulus to create room for social, cultural, political and economic development in Tanzania.
Therefore, the use of other indigenous languages was and has always been limited.
Studies of language scholars and enthusiasts maintain that, Tanzania’s indigenous languages mainly function in social-cultural affairs, judicial systems, presumably in local courts of a given speech community (Mkude, 2003; Kahigi, 2004; Rubanza,
2004).
Being a national language, Kiswahili has been promoted in different domains of use such as in administrative settings, the media, courts of laws, in the public life, educational levels. In education, Kiswahili is a MoI in nursery and primary government schools, and on the other hand, English is the Medium of Instruction from secondary schools to tertiary institutions. Nevertheless, Kiswahili has remained as a classroom subject from nursery, primary, secondary schools and in higher institutions of learning (Mulokozi, 1989). Recent developments indicate that,
TATAKI has introduced Kiswahili degree programmes from Bachelors’ to PhD, and the MoI in these programmes remains Kiswahili (TATAKI, 2010). A point worth 33
noting is that, scholars such as, Senkoro (2005), Muzale and Rugemalira (2008) argue that, efforts are made to introduce Kiswahili as a MoI in secondary schools and higher institutions of learning throughout Tanzania.
In a bid to reach the entire Tanzanian population, it is maintained that, Kiswahili language is used in business context, such as in commercial advertisements, in goods instruction manuals, product labelling, cataloguing and posters, in periodicals. Also a good number of news papers such as Uhuru, Nipashe, Sani, and Majira, among others, are printed in Kiswahili daily in Tanzania. Above all, radio stations and television networks (both national and private) broadcast in Kiswahili roughly 215 and 82 hours a week, respectively (Karl, 1999; Habwe, 2009).
On that note therefore, the National Cultural Policy of Tanzania, in which language issues are regulated through the Ministry of Information, Youths, Culture and Sports
(MoIYCS), recommended different national agencies to foster the implementation of the Tanzanian language policy. These include; Kiswahili National Council commonly known as (BAKITA). The Kiswahili Council for Zanzibar (BAKIZA), the former Institute of Kiswahili Research commonly known as (TUKI) now the
Institute of Kiswahili Studies (IKS), and Zanzibar Institute of Kiswahili and Foreign
Languages (ZIKFL), among others (Msanjila et al.,2009).
Other than the issuing of publications like; Mulika, Jifunze Kiswahili and Tafsiri
Sanifu among others, making of dictionaries, translation of textbooks, editing and publishing different academic journals and books, these language agencies train experts responsible for teaching Kiswahili language to both Tanzanians and Non-
Tanzanians at all levels. The agencies have annual celebration “Kiswahili Day” in 34
which they appreciate both intellectual and academic contributions towards the promotion and development of Kiswahili (Kiango, 2005).
This situation puts Uganda in a very difficult position. Since its enactment as official language of Uganda (UNCP, 2006:4), no serious efforts have been made to foster the promotion and development of Kiswahili in Uganda. Other than being taught in schools with little success, there are no agencies which have been established to promote Kiswahili. There is no Kiswahili news papers produced, the publications of textbooks is almost the forgotten issue. This is a very serious matter for the development and promotion of Kiswahili and the future of indigenous languages in
Uganda and other African countries.
2.2.3 Language Policy of Burkina Faso and the Promotion of Indigenous
Languages
Burkina Faso, formerly known as Upper Volta, is a West African landlocked country, having its capital at Ouagadougou. The 2010 estimates put its population at
16,214,811 people, with the growth rate of 3.1%9. French language serves as its official language. Being a multilingual nation, it is maintained that, Burkina Faso has between 60-70 indigenous languages spoken by 10 million inhabitants (Kedrebeogo,
1997 cited in Karl, 1999). With the need to create unity among its citizenry, and to appreciate the use of indigenous languages, Burkina Faso nationalized three of its indigenous languages, namely Moore spoken in Mossi with 4.5 million speakers, almost half of the country’s population, Fulfulde with 250,000 speakers and Jula
9 http:www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107369.html, retrieved on 20th January, 2011 35
language spoken by over 1 million inhabitants (Karl, 1999). Both languages
(Fulfulde and Jula) are also spoken in Mali and Niger countries.
In line with the above, the government of Burkina Faso permits other indigenous languages to be used in the local radio broadcasts and in the education system; these languages include Bisa, Bobo, Dagara, among others, which constitute 20% of indigenous languages (Karl, 1999). On the other hand, only Moore, Fulfulde and Jula languages have the privilege to be used on the television broadcasts (ibid). In this instance, however much French as its official language serves the country; it is evident that indigenous languages are given priorities by the government to be used widely so that the entire population of Burkina Faso enjoys the benefits of multilingual societies. This is a lesson to the Uganda Government to re-think about the promotion of its indigenous languages, especially the Kiswahili language, which has qualified to be its official language and the regional lingua franca.
For a long time, French was a language of MoI in Burkina Faso, with the nationalization and proclamation of Jula, Moore and Fulfulde languages, this was followed by operational and use of these languages. Among them was to replace
French language, as a MoI in elementary schools between 1978 and 1983. This was partially resisted, because it created difficulties in communication with the international world. However, the MoES supported this replacement and the national languages were widely used in government offices and administration, with the intention to eradicate illiteracy through reading and writing in Burkinabe languages
(Karl, 1999). 36
In line with that, Burkina Faso translated its national anthem and administrative terms too (ibid). The government of Burkina Faso is seen to be supportive and having a will to promote its indigenous languages not only by making them national languages, but also as language(s) of medium of instructions in educational system.
2.2.4 Uganda’s Language Policy and the Promotion of Indigenous Language
Right from Objective XXIV of the Constitution of Uganda, the promotion of culture has been highlighted as a customary value that is consistent with the fundamental human right, freedom, human dignity and democracy to be developed and incorporated in Ugandans life spheres (Constitution of Uganda, 1995), also supported by Article 6, that provides for use of any other language as MoI in school
(CAA, 2005). The Republic of Uganda has initiated efforts to set up developmental, preservation and promotional centres for Uganda’s cultures which include different languages. These include; National Library of Uganda (NLoU) and Uganda National
Cultural Centre (UNCC) set specifically to promote Uganda’s cultural heritage in which languages are part and partial (UNCP, 2006: 11)
Uganda Government’s policies and plans such as; The Social Development Sector
Strategic Investment Plan (SDIP) and the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) recognize the importance of culture in the country; culture is an umbrella where languages are part and parcel. Whereas PEAP views culture as a vibrant and intrinsically valuable dimension of peoples’ capital identity that helps to drive nationals from poverty (ibid, p.12), on the other hand, SDIP promotes cultural industries, language bodies, indigenous knowledge, and it provides support to 37
Ugandan actors and their institutions that promote culture, which is a social contribution to Uganda as a country.
The Republic of Uganda is regionally a member state of African Union (AU) and
East African Community (EAC). One of the objectives of these organisations is to promote sustainable development at the economic, social, and cultural settings (in which languages are found). Hence, Uganda is obliged to implement and promote close co-operation in culture and sports. Internationally, Uganda is a signatory to
Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR), United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), and to the Convention on the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). In that respect therefore, Uganda is bound by the International Convention on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to recognize every citizen to fully participate in the promotion and development of cultural life at all levels (UNCP, 2006:13). By promoting culture in which languages play a major role, Ugandans will contribute positively to the development and promotion of indigenous languages of their country.
2.2.4.1 Kiswahili and Language Use in the Education System of Uganda
According to Nelde (2000), one of the strongest influences on language planning and policy is that of education. The Ugandan Education Language Policy was enacted in
1992 in the Government White Paper. The aim of this paper was to polish different defects and several areas of inadequacy accruing in the constitution of Uganda for the interest and proper administration of the country. Among other things, in Uganda, the medium of instruction has always been a paralyzed area of interest among 38
Ugandans. Therefore, to rectify the MoI predicament in the education system, the
Government White Paper stipulated that, the Kiswahili and English languages would be taught as compulsory subjects to all learners throughout the primary level of learning, in both urban and rural areas (White Paper, 1992:19). The White Paper pointed out the need for systematic development of the main official and national languages in Uganda and recommended to the government on policies and programmes for the promotion of other Ugandan languages.
The White Paper maintains that, to ensure rapid social development in the country, the efforts be made to strengthen Kiswahili language since the language possesses greater capacity for uniting Ugandans. In line with the Government White Paper,
MoES proposed for a renewal of its Primary Education Curriculum, in which
Kiswahili would be taught as a subject from primary one (P.1) and be examinable at the end of primary eight (P.8) by the Uganda National Examination Board (UNEB) as shown in Table 2.3
Table 2.3: Kiswahili as a Subject in Schools’ Timetables
Languages P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 P.5 P.6 P.7 P.8
Mother tongue MoI MoI MoI MoI Sbj Sbj Sbj Sbj
English Sbj Sbj Sbj MoI MoI MoI MoI MoI
Kiswahili Sbj Sbj Sbj Sbj Sbj Sbj Sbj Sbj
Source: Muyanda (1996). KEY: MoI= Medium of Instruction; Sbj= Subject 39
However, it was observed that, putting English as a MoI had its impacts. Teachers claimed that English is a classroom language; therefore students were not exposed to
English in the outside environment, making students’ learning difficult with least enthusiasm.
In 2001, the Uganda’s primary school curriculum indicated that, Kiswahili language was an official language for Kenya and Tanzania; it is a lingua franca for East and
Central African countries. The curriculum highlighted that, the same language was being taught not only in African universities, but also in Europe and North American universities. On top of that, the curriculum indicated that, Kiswahili is a Bantu language, with striking vocabularies, and that its structure is similar to that of
Ugandan Bantu languages. Hence, it was recommended that, the language should be promoted to become the national language and be taught from primary schools
(MoES, 2001).
In 2008, MoES reviewed its curriculum for primary education to be thematic in nature. The thematic curriculum takes into account that, primary education is the first level of formal education for majority of Uganda’s children and it equips learners with basic, vital competence and practical skills to undertake their studies well. The curriculum is prepared to enable the learner to contribute in one way or another to national developments (MoES, 2008a).
The thematic curriculum aims at enabling learners to acquire functional, permanent and developmental literacy, numeracy and communication skills in English,
Kiswahili and at least one Ugandan indigenous language, and this will develop a sense of patriotism, nationalism and national unity in diversity within learners 40
(MoES, 2008b). Accordingly, the ministry recorded a positive attribute of thematic curriculum, when it noted that, the use of local language in teaching seems to be a privilege to the pupils as they capture the content with ease through their familiar language for free interactions (MoES, 2008c).
The curriculum stipulates that, a child who learns in his/her home language or at least a language that a child is familiar with contributes to learner’s good performance.
However, the curriculum emphasized that, learners with hearing impairments should be catered for through the development of sign languages and those with visual impairment will use Braille machines. Still the curriculum goes ahead to mention that, in oral literature lessons, a learner explores his/her local culture and develops a sense of need to have ability and potential to maintain the culture (ibid:2). In line with that, it was observed that, languages such as Luganda, French, English, German,
Latin, Arabic and Kiswahili are examined (UNEB, 1998-2003). However, the time allocation for oral literature in schools’ timetables does not favour its teaching
(Personal observation).
It is maintained that, for social-economical advancements to accrue in the country there is need of much effort by the government to standardize and strengthen its education sector in order to fit in the cultural and linguistic needs of its people
(Kasozi, 2005). This will ensure both, gradual but prosperous transformation of the country’s economy as well as strengthening of students’ self concept hence good performance. This has been supported by Brock-Utne (1997) who comments that restoration of the African languages as MoI is another alternative to restore languages’ dignity. As Prah (2002a) admits, societies which stopped the use of 41
colonial languages as MoI have made a great progress and development in the entire social, economic and political contexts. Language is a major factor to the challenge of Uganda’s development and Africa at large (Prah, 2002b).
Once Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1986: 108 as cited by Prah, 2002a) commented that, the call for the rediscovery and the assumption of our language is a call for a regenerative reconnection with the millions of revolutionary tongues in Africa and the world over demanding liberation. He adds that, it is a call for the rediscovery of the real language of humankind, the language of struggle. It is the universal language underlying all speech and words of our history. Struggle makes us understand our history, our language and our being. According to Prah (2002a), the answer to the language question of a country like Uganda, is to foster the emancipation of
Ugandans, Africans and the world at large. This will determine and recognize distinct cultural components of African humanity worldwide.
The current Ministry of Education and Sports’ mission is to “support, guide coordinate, regulate and promote quality education and sports to all persons of
Uganda for national integration, individual and national development” (RESSP
2007-2015, 2008:1). To support the above mission, MoES consequently updated its
Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) 2004-2015, by improving the quality of primary education through the introduction of local languages as MoI and simplified thematic curriculum, among other additional items. This has been a positive attribute to the language specialists and linguists in Uganda. Also, the MoES had plans to improve the provision of instructional material at all levels of education system, to 42
strengthen the training and in-service support to teachers (RESSP 2007-2015, 2008: iii-iv).
However, MoES has marginalized the local Language Training Institutes (LTIs) that produce language specialists in the country. The MoES partly failed to coordinate finance and promote these institutions, hence, doing contrary to the MoES’s mission.
2.2.4.2 The Institute of Languages
The institute of languages was established in 1974 as a unit within Literature
Department, the oldest Department in the Faculty of Arts at Makerere University.
The Institute was a result of transformation of the Department of Literature formally
Department of English. The Institute is a semi-autonomous and renowned Institute in
Uganda for producing language specialists and linguists. Among them, are the prominent East African state men such as J.K Nyerere (RIP) and Benjamin Mkapa
(both are former Presidents of the United Republic of Tanzania). Literature giants such as Okot P’Bitek, Ngugi wa Thiong’o among others, are also a product of the
Department of Literature.
However in 1994, due to an increase in the number of language students at MAK, the
Institute became semi-autonomous under the Faculty of Arts. As a Language
Training Institute (LTI), the institute falls under the Business, Technical, Vocational
Education and Training (BTVET) Act 12 of the 1995 Uganda Constitution. The Act aims at providing for the promotion and coordination of business, technical, vocational education and training. To provide for the principles governing BTVET; to establish the institutional framework for the promotion and coordination of 43
BTVET; to establish the Uganda Vocational Qualifications Framework and to provide for the financing of BTVET and for other related matters (BTVET Act,
2008:3).
With the above provisions, the Institute of Languages is a public provider for specialized training in languages. In its objectives, the BTVET Act (2008) never specified the Institute as a provider of BTVET. The only identified providers are; community polytechnics, vocational training centres and institutes, technical institutes, technical colleges and specialized training institutions to mention but a few. This indicates that, MoES does not to a certain extent recognize the values and objectives of the Institute of Languages. Therefore, the Institute’s coordination, support and promotion of its academic achievements in preparing language specialists, are entirely to the benefits of the Institute but not Uganda as a country.
Currently, the IoLs offers undergraduate, postgraduate diploma as well as postgraduate degree programmes in languages such as English language studies,
French, German, Arabic, Kiswahili, Luganda, Runyakitara, Luo, Linguistics, to mention but a few. The students’ enrolment capacity in 2005/2006 academic year stood at 1198 for first years, 708 for second years, 758 for third years, 27 at M.A. level plus 8 Ph.D candidates (IoLMUPP, N.d). With five distinct departments, ten years in operation under the Faculty of Arts, the Institute is working towards its autonomy and will be known as “Makerere University School of Languages and
Culture (MASLAC)” in the near future as shown in Table 2.4
44
Table 2.4: Intended Courses to be offered by MASLAC
Departments Courses 1. Department of Linguistics, English and Linguistics, Translation Studies, English Translation Studies and Language Studies 2. Department of European, American and French Language and Culture, German Translation Studies Language and Culture, Spanish Language and Culture and American Studies 3. Department of Arabic and Asiatic Arabic Language and Culture, Chinese Languages and Culture Language and Culture, Japanese Language and Culture, and Asian Studies 4. Department of Communication and Communication Skills, Secretarial Studies Culture Studies and Office Management, Cultural Anthropology and Heritage Studies 5. Department of African Studies Kiswahili Language and Culture, Luganda Language and Culture, Runyakitara Language and Culture, Lwo Language and Culture, Lugbara Language and Culture, Lusoga-Lugwere Language and Culture, Ateso-Ngakarimojong Language and Culture. Source: (IoLMUPP, n.d).
The students’ enrolment capacity in relation to the teaching manpower at the Institute is alarming. Indeed it is a serious problem to the institute to have only 36 language teachers. The teacher-student ratio is really low. In a conversation with the Deputy
Director of the Institute, it was revealed that Kiswahili language has only 3 lecturers who are employed by Government of Uganda, through Makerere University Council.
And out of the three lecturers, only one is at the level of Professorship, and the remaining are holders of Masters Degree. This number of lecturers indicates that, there is too much teaching load, which might lead to inefficiency in the preparation of language graduates.
It is worth noting that, the German, Spanish, Italian, and Chinese embassies in
Uganda have played a greater role and are continuing to give support to their language courses by provision of some teaching materials, and ready to send 45
language specialists to prepare degree programmes for the Institute. There is a need for the Government of Uganda through its ministries, civil societies, cultural institutions, NGOs, and other private stakeholders in and outside Uganda, to initiate and strengthen its support towards the development and promotion of the Institute.
A good example is the Languages of Tanzania project (LoT) which was launched in
2001 at the University of Dar es salaam. The project had two objectives. Firstly, is to produce a language atlas for the country, indicating the languages spoken in
Tanzania, the number of speakers for each language, and geographical distribution of the languages. Secondly, is to produce a vocabulary list/dictionary and a grammar for each of the languages of Tanzania (Legère, 2002).It is evident that, the project is being supported greatly by funds from the government of Tanzania and from a partner University in Sweden (Muzale and Rugemalira, 2001).
2.2.5 Studies on Language Policy and the Promotion of Indigenous Languages in Uganda
Literature reveals that very few studies have been conducted in Uganda, as far as
Uganda’s language policy and promotion of indigenous languages is concerned.
These studies include (Ndoleriire 1996; Mpuga 2003; Majola, 2005; Kabananukye and Kwagala, 2007; Hirome, 2008; Kawachi, 2010 and Nabirye, 2010).
These studies focused mainly on the issues of MoI, orthography development, dictionary making and promotion of indigenous languages rather than the need for promotion Kiswahili as an official and a national language. Studies conducted in
Uganda in relation to its language policy and promotions of indigenous languages include the following: 46
2.2.5.1 Ndoleriire’s (1996) Study
Will Kiswahili be a national language of Uganda or simply an important language of the nation? As he tries to answer this question, Ndoleriire (1996) argues that, some tribes’ men will never accept Kiswahili to serve a given purpose in Uganda, rather than their language(s). He points out the Baganda from Buganda region as the major tribe to resent Kiswahili use and development in the country. He adds that, Kiswahili language could only take off to its zeniths only if the government of Uganda stands firm in the implementation of its recommendations. He maintains that, the major obstacle for such implementation is not only financial constraints and manpower, but it has always been fanatics who like so much their language(s) to have a given status in Uganda. He contends that, despite the fact that Kiswahili is not a native language of Ugandans; it is spoken as a second language by the majority of the population. He cites Msanjila’s (2003) and Muzale and Rugemalira’s (2008) remarks that even in
Tanzania where Kiswahili is both a national as well as the official language, other native languages stand as first languages for the elders (parents at least) and within the young generation, especially those raised in the cosmopolitan areas, Kiswahili serves as their first language. This has been witnessed in Uganda, where English is spoken by few urban dwellers as first language, and other indigenous languages are considered as second or third languages in a given speech community. It is evident that, once Kiswahili is properly and seriously planned, implemented and considered not only by the government but also by individual Ugandans’ efforts in writing of books, dictionaries, terminological developments and provisional of language 47
instructional materials among others, the language will intensify as a viable lingua franca for the region.
2.2.5.2 Mpuga’s (2003) Study
Mpuga examined the language policy of Uganda in relation to English as a foreign language and its social-economic development of Uganda. The study interestingly focussed on the English influence on the local languages of Uganda. Mpuga admits that Ugandans are not native speakers of English language. English is only spoken by a few educated Ugandans, living especially in the cities which are multilingual, that supports the creation of social-linguistics differences. It is maintained that partial difficulties in communication coerce people to borrow words from English to simplify communication. Lexicons from Indigenous languages have been mixed with
English words like motocar-motoka, train-treini, ticket-tikiti, and christmas- krisimasi to mention but a few. Such usage has continuously supported code mixing and code switching in the Ugandan societies. Thus, this situation is evident in the
Kenyan multilingual settings, where the majority of youth from different ethnic backgrounds command code mixing and code switching in their daily lives, thus, exhibit high degree of expatriate in both bilingualism and multilingualism
(Mugambi, 2008).
2.2.5.3 Majola’s (2005) and Hirome’s (2008) Studies
Both Majola (2005) and Hirome (2008) conducted studies on Uganda pertaining to language policy. However, their studies focused more on the question of the MoI in primary schools. Majola’s study focused on the involvement and inclusion of 48
indigenous languages in the school syllabus for primary schools. Whereas Hirome’s study focused more on the issues of multilingual literacy development in Uganda,
Hirome (ibid) argued for the use of mother tongue, in the early years of schooling
(standard 1 to 4), also maintained by (Msanjila et al., 2009).
The two scholars differ in a way that, Majola’s emphasis was on teaching of indigenous languages in primary schools (Standard 1 to Standard 7), Hirome (ibid) opted for the use of indigenous languages as a MoI in Uganda (Standard 1 to
Standard 3). However, their pivot was that both pioneered the language of instruction in primary school to be in indigenous languages of Uganda. Thus, their studies have a positive contribution to this study. There is thin line between this study and their studies because on one hand, their studies focus on how to promote indigenous language(s) as MoI in primary schools, Kiswahili inclusive. And on the other hand, this study investigates factors that hinder Kiswahili promotion in Uganda. Thus, the current study and the two studies by Majola and Hirome compliment each other.
2.2.5.4 Kabananukye and Kwagala’s (2007) Study
The aim of Kabananukye and Kwagala’s study was to examine the status of Batwa language in light with the available legal frameworks. The Batwa people who speak
Lutwa, Luyanda and Lumbuti are Pygmies/Abayanda. Abayanda are found in about
10 African countries including Uganda. Its is evident that the Batwa lived in Bwindi and Mgahingi forests, their population stand at approximately 0.0286% of Uganda’s
2010 population estimates,. The granting of these forests a National Park status brought to an end not only to the Batwa’s traditions, but also to their language
(Lutwa). Lutwa language could be among those listed to be dead by the end of 21st 49
Century. It should be noted that, the end of Batwa tradition not only undermined the
Batwa’s social welfare, but it also dismantled their language structure, which is a sign of linguistic genocide.
Indeed by 2007, the researchers hardly found anyone who could speak or prescribe the Lutwa language. Such facts indicate that, there is general lack of appreciation of the significance and value of Uganda’s cultural heritage towards the realization of
Uganda’s Vision 2025 Goals. The vision calls for the need to understand the importance and the linkage between culture and language. Hence the Ugandan government should acknowledge the role played by languages for the development of the people’s cultures and societies in general.
2.2.5.5 Kawachi’s (2010) Study
The aim of this study was to account for the regional profile of Sebei, prepare a report on the diminishing vitality of Kupsapiny language, and propose means on how to revitalize the Kupsapiny language. Being Southern Nilotic in nature, very few studies have been done on this language, these include Montgomery, (1966), O’Brien and Cuyers, (1975) to mention but a few.
Sebei, a region found in the northern slopes of an extinct mountain (Mt. Elgon), in the eastern part of Uganda, covers an area approximately 1,750 square kilometers, has a population of 181,000 people (UBoS, 2010). The spoken language in the area is
Kupsapiny with English, Luganda, and Kiswahili being spoken too. Other than
English which is learnt at school, the other languages are learnt through contacts with the speakers of the said languages. The point to note is that, Sebei is surrounded by 50
communities of other languages such as; Ngakaramojong, Ateso and Sabaot among others.
As mentioned earlier, English language remains the language of instruction in Sebei, like in any other parts of Uganda. In lower classes (Standards 1 to Standard 3), learners are taught in Kupsapiny. However, due to lack of developed writing system for Kupsapiny language, it has been observed that the English teaching materials serve the teaching purposes, the fact which has had a great impact on the Sebei people for failing to have sufficient basic vocabulary for their language (Kupsapiny).
Thus, the Sebei people can hardly provide words in Kupsapiny that express fundamental concept in the attested language. Code switching and code mixing are experienced in people’s daily lives. Accordingly, lack of vitality for Kupsapiny language has been attributed to two factors. Firstly, the low sense of urgency by the
Sebei people to maintain and preserve their language and culture. Secondly, the adverse of other languages such as Luganda, Kiswahili and others into the Sebei region, have contributed a lot in the vitality of Kupsapiny language.
In fact, it is evident that, a pidgin language developed in Sebei as a result of failure to develop a standard orthography for the Kupsapiny language. This can further be attributed to not only the death of an endangered language Kupsapiny language, but also to the loss of social identity for the Sebei people. In this respect therefore, there is need to strengthen the roots of our indigenous languages, formal and balanced developments of these language should be adhered too. This will mitigate the communication problems not only in Sebei but also in the whole of Uganda.
51
2.2.5.6 Nabirye’s (2010) Study
The major concern for Nabirye’s (2010) study was to fill the gap that had been neglected for decades. In view of the Government of Uganda’s directives (NCDC,
2006:5) to involve indigenous languages into education system in early primary levels (Standard 1 to Standard 3), many languages especially those that are not written were in dilemma as far as Language of Instruction in schools was concerned.
Lusoga being one of them is a language spoken by the Uganda’s third largest ethnic group followed by Runyankole and Luganda. Lusoga, which is categorized in the
Bantu language family, is spoken by roughly two million people (UBoS, 2010).
In that direction therefore, the study focused on the documentation of more references for the attested language, because initially lack of enough reference materials, had an impact on the people of Busoga for their failure to read and write their language. To emphasize that, in 2005, Lusoga among other languages including
Luganda, Karamajong, Lugbara, and Acholi to mention but a few was chosen to be the language of instruction in Busoga region (Bamgbose, 2004; NCDC, 2006: 5).
However, lack of Lusoga language qualified teachers as well as documented material for reference in a bid to implement the teaching obligations, is still a predicament in
Busoga.
It has been maintained that, literature publication has not been apparent for Lusoga for a given period of time; Lusoga grammar; Lusoga orthography and Lusoga wordlist are few examples of the existing publications. According to Nabirye (ibid), the existing materials do not have a logical selection of coverage, and the grammar used is not coherent, therefore there is need to edit and reprint such materials for a 52
wider teaching and learning coverage. It is agreed that, the wordlist books are bilingually published and their target are speakers of English-Lusoga, which can hardly be accessed by people who cannot speak English as their first language, because the metalanguage is English. A good example of such people is lower class learners of primary level (Standard 1 to Standard 3).
With the need to address the challenges presented above, in 2010, Nabirye compiled a monolingual Lusoga dictionary with the aim of not only standardising, but also to widen the Lusoga reference coverage which can be used by anyone in the region.
Nabirye’s study has a positive contribution to the maintenance and preservation of the existing indigenous languages in the world. It is a lesson to other cultures that have neglected to develop the orthographies of their language, which might lead to language death. Kupsapiny language speakers can draw important and useful knowledge from Nabirye’s study. The government of Uganda should be delightful for such developments accruing in the region, which brings a need to facilitate the existing languages and develop new ones for easier communication patterns in the country.
2.3 Research Gap
What has been reviewed above clearly shows that few studies have been done in
Uganda’s indigenous languages, more so, Kiswahili language promotion. Indeed, most of these studies concentrated on addressing the promotion of Kiswahili as a classroom subject and MoI in primary school. Practically, little has been researched on the question of language policy and the promotion of Kiswahili language in the
Uganda multilingual situation. This study therefore, intends to fill this gap, because 53
the study identifies the factors that hinder the promotion of Kiswahili and provide practical alternatives to the problem, for a proper and sound language policy. 54
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
The previous Chapter reviewed relevant literature on key concepts of language planning and language policy accompanied by vivid examples from different countries. It further reviewed specific literature on language policy and the promotion of indigenous languages from selected countries, Uganda inclusive, and lastly the chapter identified the research gap. This Chapter therefore discusses the research design and methodology that was used in data collection and analysis. The
Chapter further discusses the literature related to the adopted research paradigm, the population sample and sampling procedures. Additionally, data collection methods and analysis, and research ethical issues are also discussed. And finally, the Chapter discusses the limitations of the study.
3.1 Research Design
Research design is the arrangement of conditions for soliciting and analysis of information in a way that is intended to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in procedure (Kothari, 2004; Kombo and Tromp, 2006). This study uses a descriptive research design due to the fact that, the study aims at addressing contemporary state of affairs in Uganda as far as the language policy and promotion of Kiswahili are concerned, in fact to get the updated profile on Kiswahili promotion.
The data collections were partly collected using interviews to the sampled 55
population. Interviews were administered in order to get the insights on the use of
Kiswahili language in Uganda.
3.2 Identification of Research Paradigm
A paradigm is a philosophical framework that provides the means on how research is done. Paradigms are globally recognized scientific achievements that provide a time model of problems and solutions to the community of the population. Jill and Roger,
(2009) analyze two distinct research paradigms namely; positivism paradigm developed by Positivist Comte (1778-1857), and the interpretive paradigm championed by Interpretivist Kant (1724-1804).
The positivistic researches are empirically approved by systematic observation and experiments because, as Fraenkel and Wallen, (2000) assert, every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or logically and mathematically proved. However, Interpretivists contend that social reality is modelled by our perceptions; under this paradigm, the researcher interacts with what is being studied, and Interpretivists maintain that, it is impossible to separate what exists in the social context from what is in the researchers mind. Therefore, investigation of social reality significantly has an effect on it. The exploitation of complexity of social phenomenon allows Interpretivists to adopt a range of methods to “seek to describe” and come up with the meaning.
Jill and Roger, (2009) summarises that, in interpretivism; findings are not derived from statistical analysis of qualitative data. Interpretivists’ characteristics have features such as, use of small sample, natural location, production of findings which 56
can be replicated from one setting to another of similar settings. Basing on such features, this study followed the Interpretivists paradigm because, the study was conducted in a natural setting (Kampala city), with a relatively small sample of 15 interviewees. Thus, the study findings can be applicable in any other country with similar such language problems.
3.3 Area of the Study
This study was carried out in Kampala city; the official, commercial and capital city of the Republic of Uganda. Being a cosmopolitan and administrative region, the location of Kampala was appropriate for this study due to the fact that, very few studies on LPP and LP and promotion of Kiswahili have been carried out in this city.
Also, being easily accessible, Kampala’s locality provided an opportunity for the researcher to access and retrieves the necessary information for the study. The locality of Kampala city provides premises for the institutions that this study involved. Uganda being a multilingual society, Kampala city blends people from different ethnic groups, who assisted in the provision of data needed in the study.
3.3.1 Population Sample and Sampling Procedures
The population sample for this study included 15 interviewees from 15 institutions that take a leading role in the formulation, facilitating, coordinating and those that implement the UNCP in the Ugandan ethnic and multilingual dimensions (see,
Appendix I). The study used stratified random sampling method to get the sample.
As Bryman (2004) assert, stratified random sampling as a sampling method in which interviewees are randomly sampled from a population that has been divided into 57
categories. To implement this, first, the population sample was categorised into two groups namely; LPP makers on one side, and LP implementers/ promoters on the other side. Then, the two groups of interviewees were further divided into two, that is to say interviewees from government as well as the private sector making a total of
15 interviewees for the study population sample as shown in the Table 3.5
Table 3.5: Number of Institutions Included in the Population Sample
Institutions Roles No: of interviewees Percentage
LPP Makers 08 53% Government LPP Implementers 04 27% Private LPP Implementers 03 20% Total 15 100% Source: Field Data (2010)
3.4 Data Collection Methods
According to Denscombe (1998), data collection refers to gathering of specific information, aimed at proving or refuting some facts. This study applied more than one technique of data collection method in order to crosscheck the authenticity of the collected data. The study used documentary analysis for secondary data and interview technique for primary data. By analyzing the nature of the study, the study maximized the validity and reliability of the data, out of many data collecting techniques, putting in consideration the research design, methodology and research paradigm selected earlier.
58
3.4.1 Documentary Analysis
Documentary analysis technique is one of data collecting techniques which allows a researcher to identify the already useful literature that can assist in solving a problem under study. This study used official statistical information from UNCP, UBoS,
MoES, MoGLSD, among others. The study extensively reviewed relevant literature on matters related to language policy and language planning theories, countries with multilingual language strategies, and bilingual education policies and relating these to the Ugandan language situation. It is maintained that, the used documents are recognized and play a significant roles in studying social context of Uganda’s language contemporary matters, thus, qualified to be considered creditable and authentic documents.
The study made use of ideas from other countries which are considered favourable and applicable for problem identification as well as problem solving. The literature used, reduced time consumption since they were already pre-processed. It was easily available, gave a researcher ‘time-base’ extension, by providing related data to the earlier stage of the issues at hand. The researcher found it useful and paramount to use language related textbooks, journals, dissertations, newspapers, among others.
The study reviewed relevant literature on factors which facilitate and provide room for the implementation of language policies of different selected countries, Uganda, inclusive. A comparison and contrast analysis of the documents provided an in-depth study in order to answer research questions and fulfil the objectives of the intended outcome of the study.
59
3.4.2 Interview Method
Interview method was used purposefully to solicit data from interviewees. This method provided room for intensive investigation of the problem under scrutiny.
During field tour, interviews were initiated by informing the interviewees the background and purpose of the study. Most interviews lasted up to an hour which was ample time to collect detailed data on the topic under study.
The researcher interviewed policy planners/language policy makers who were mainly legislators, principals, research officers and directors. And, language policy implementers/promoters included; social workers, university and college language lecturers, radio and television presenters. During interviews, the researcher directly sat next to the interviewee, this was aimed at saving time, allowing the researcher to control the line of questioning, as well as to intensively discuss with one person before embarking on another individual for clarity. Depending on the context, the researcher was taking notes during the interview session.
Each interviewee was interviewed personally to ensure confidentiality. Interviews were conducted in different institutions at a time of interviewees’ convenience.
English language was used throughout the interview; because it was the language most interviewees could freely express themselves more especially with the LPP makers/planners. However, all language policy implementers/ promoters used
Kiswahili language in the interview, they only code switched to English while emphasizing a point. Table 3.6 shows the number of interviewees who were involved in the study. 60
Table 3.6: The Number of Interviewees who were sampled
Number of Institutions Categories Males Females Percentage Interviewees Ministries 03 02 01 20% Agencies 05 01 04 33% Government Academia 03 03 00 20% Media 01 00 01 07% Academia 01 00 01 07% Private Media 02 02 00 13% Total 15 08 07 100% Source: Field Data (2010)
3.4.3 Interview Guide
The researcher prepared interview guide questions, for both LPP makers/planners and LP implementers/promoters. It involved open-ended questions with an aim to provide the interviewees with opportunities to freely give responses pertaining to language related matters. The interview guide focused on the research questions, which were fairly clear and straight forward, even for the less experienced interviewee. The interview guide not only used simple language, but also avoided vague questions; the questions were limited to a single idea with specific purpose.
The interview guide was composed by relatively specific topics and ideas; the interview guide for LPP makers/planners was divided into four (4) sections, and that of LP implementers/promoters had only three (3) sections in line with the research questions (see, Appendices II and III respectively). Section A, for both interview guides, was meant to obtain demographic information of the interviewees, section B,
(only for LPP makers/planners) was meant to obtain background information on the current roles of Kiswahili at national and international levels, section B, of the interview guide for LP implementers, which is the same as section C, of the 61
interview guide for LPP makers/planners, was designed to solicit data pertaining to factors that are likely to hinder the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda and lastly, section C, of the interview guide for LP implementers, which is the same as section
D, of the interview guide for LPP makers/planners, was aimed at soliciting data on factors that are likely to promote Kiswahili in the Ugandan Multilingual Context.
3.4.4 Response Rate
As mentioned earlier, the entire study planned to involve seventeen (17) interviewees from seventeen (17) institutions, but in actual sense, only fifteen (15) interviewees from fifteen (15) institutions were interviewed. These includes, eight (8) language policy makers/planners and seven (7) language policy implementers/promoters.
Therefore, the response rate was 88% of the sampled population. To sum up, the response rate for the study produced satisfactory and reliable results for the study.
3.4.5 Gender Issues
Gender was a central point in this study. It involved both sexes (male and female) whose roles are complimentary. This was done with the aim of supporting emancipation of previously disadvantaged group (female) to become advantaged and not to remain disadvantaged. Therefore, in this study, the gender platform was with relatively ratio of 7:8 female and male interviewees respectively.
3.5 Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data analysis refers to examining what has been collected from the field by making deductions and inferences. Data analysis involves uncovering underlying structures, testing assumptions among others (Amin, 2004; Kombo and Tromp, 2006). Possible 62
research solutions are obtained as a result of scrutinizing the collected information.
Data analysis opens a door to make sense out of what has been collected from the field. It checks for patterns, consistence and integrate them into major objectives which is an indicator of reliable findings.
The collected data were presented qualitatively according to major themes of the study, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis approach. The data from interviews were interpreted, summarized, and themes were organised using altitudinal as well as percentage approach in relation to the research objectives. For a clear interpretation of results, comprehensive comparisons were made between themes from interviews and those from documentary reviews to create a room for contrast and similarity of the results.
3.6 Research Ethics
According to Coolican, (1992) and Barrie, (2000), it is essential to observe ethical principles in the conduct of research which include procuring a research clearance, voluntary participation of respondents, provision of study objectives to the participants as well as maintaining anonymity and confidentiality. After the approval of the proposal by my supervisor, research clearance letter was obtained from the
Research Bureau and Publications of the University of Dar es Salaam (see, Appendix
IV).
The letter was presented to the Uganda High Commissioner to Tanzania who communicated to The National Council for Science and Technology (NCST) of
Uganda, in order to allow the researcher to visit Kampala city (see, Appendix V). 63
Official permit from NCST and Office of the President was given to the researcher
(see, Appendices, VI and VII respectively), to allow the researcher to progress with data collection in Kampala city, Uganda.
3.7 Limitations of the Study
Any research study would usually face different constrains in terms of time, and financial availability, scarcity and accessibility of resources. This study faced a number of limitations including lack of adequate resources (such as time, finance, and relevant literature) which were much needed for ensuring wide coverage of the study. Some institutions such as MoEAA and ELWE were not interviewed due to increased number of researchers in the Ministry, and the absence of the interviewee from ELWE. Above all, data collection which was to be done within one month was done in three months. This was due to the delay of getting research permit by both the Office of the President as well as UNCST. This consumed a lot of researcher’s time.
However, despite the above problems, the study was successfully done as follows; the researcher waited for the research permit from the office in-charge; the researcher was also assisted with some literature from concerned personnel of different offices especially those which took party in this study. However, interviewees from MoEAA and ELWE were not interviewed. In that note therefore, the results of the research generated adequate data that were needed for the analysis and interpretation. Thus, this study represents a fair view of the challenges experienced in the promotion of Kiswahili language in Uganda. 64
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4. 0 Introduction
This Chapter presents, analyses, and interprets the data that were collected. The
Chapter is divided into three sections based on the research specific objectives. The first section which is specifically for LPP makers/planners presents their responses towards the roles of Kiswahili at national and international levels. The second section presents responses from both LPP makers/planners and LP implementers/ promoters on factors that hinder the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda, and the third (last) section presents responses from both LPP makers/planners and LP implementers/ promoters on factors that are likely to promote Kiswahili in the Ugandan context.
Data from two different instruments were analyzed simultaneously because each instrument complimented the other.
4.1 The Roles of Kiswahili at National and International Levels
In any country, nation or even state, once a language(s) has changed a status to the level of being official, national or regional language, its roles and functions are usually clearly defined and stipulated. Therefore, this section presents LPP makers/planners’ responses in relation to the roles that Kiswahili language has in
Uganda. To ascertain the roles, the following question was asked to interviewees.
Why do you think Kiswahili was chosen to be the official language of Uganda? To answer this question, interviewees were supposed to give reasons as to why
Kiswahili other than any indigenous language(s) was chosen to be the official 65
language of Uganda next to English. This question ascertains LPP makers/ planners acknowledgement of government’s intentions for choosing Kiswahili as its official language other than any indigenous language in Uganda. In response to this question, three reasons were given as follows;
4.1.1 Kiswahili as an East African Language
Seventy five percent (75%) of the interviewees stated that, Kiswahili is an East
African language, and Uganda is a member of EAC, so there was need to have a common language that unites the people of East Africa. Some of the interviewees had the following to say:
…Kiswahili is a regional language, so there was need to be incorporated in Uganda as a country to cope with other countries like Kenya and Tanzania and others… now Burundi and Rwanda have come on board, we know they speak the language better than us… This indicates that, Kiswahili has been recognized as the only East African language that people use in their daily conversations. And above all, it is the language that its use has been recognized by regional organisations such as AU and EAC, which foster regional cooperation socially, politically and economically among member states. Such a response has been observed by Mazrui and Mazrui (1995) and
Katembo (2005) who maintain that, Kiswahili has gained international position beyond its tradition confinements; it is used in different continents of the world namely Europe, America in order to solve and harmonize world’s problems related to multilingualism and globalization. Therefore, Kiswahili use in Uganda will not only reduce the communication barriers that exist among the Ugandan societies, but it will bring the people of Uganda closer to their neighbouring countries, and the world at large. 66
4.1.2 Kiswahili as a Regional Lingua Franca
Sixty three percent (63%) of the interviewees stated that, Kiswahili is a lingua franca for East and Central Africa; hence, Kiswahili provides a link between nationalities from this region. To maintain their responses, the interviewee from NCDC, had this to say:
…it is good that Uganda houses a language that is shared among the people of East and Central African countries, in Uganda Kiswahili is not considered seriously, had it been like English, our communication channels with some parts of Africa like Congo, Rwanda and Burundi would be better. Kiswahili promotion should be priotised in Uganda, so that Uganda can join the region and the rest of the world to interact freely, hence, this will strengthen the EAC with a shared common language. As earlier on commented by Moshi (2006), there have been massive promotion programs of Kiswahili language even in Francophone countries that share same territories with Uganda like Rwanda and DRC.
4.1.3 Kiswahili as the Most Developed Language as Compared to Other
Indigenous Languages of Uganda
However, only 38% of the interviewees admitted that, Uganda has so many local languages which are not recognized because they are not well developed and wide spread opposed to Kiswahili. The interviewees added that, Kiswahili holds least degree of controversy compared to other indigenous languages of Uganda in case they were chosen to be official language(s). In light of this, the interviewees emphasized that;
Kiswahili is a language, with least degree of controversy as opposed to other indigenous languages of Uganda hence stands a better chance to be the highest priotised indigenous language in Uganda… 67
Kiswahili has a better chance to be used in the Ugandan context since it is well spread throughout East Africa and, Kiswahili has the potential to be voted for by many people for its use in a bid to simplify Uganda’s multilingual complexity as observed in Tanzania and Kenya. Wendo, (2009 citing Cobarrubias 1983) argues that
Kiswahili is minimally a vehicle of communication between a transmitter and a receiver in a specific sociolinguistic context of Kenya. Uganda can learn from the
Kenyan experience as cited by Wendo, (ibid) in order to advocate and support it multilingual and linguistic diversity.
4.2 The Roles of Kiswahili at Uganda
The language(s) roles are different areas of use and locality whereby language(s) are set to function. These can be public, social or particular defined domains. To get views on the functions of Kiswahili at Uganda, the interviewees were asked the following question, what are the roles of Kiswahili in Uganda? The interviewees responded as follows:
4.2.1 Kiswahili as a School Subject
Thirty eight percent (38%) of the interviewees, which were the majority, stated that,
Kiswahili was, still a school subject in all educational levels. They maintained that, little has been done in promoting it in the education system especially in primary level. As earlier noted, the government emphasized the introduction of Kiswahili as a subject in primary level. Adamantly, many schools have not complied with it. The interviewees from two institutions i.e. MoES and NCDC had this to say;
…in some secondary schools they teach Swahili especially urban schools…With rural schools we are not sure…in universities like Makerere, 68
Kyambogo and others we are sure they teach languages, Kiswahili inclusive… The above response strongly supports that, Kiswahili has been supported in education spheres, though with little success. This can be attributed to lack of proper enforcement laws by the government to strengthen its directives. It has been maintained that the education system, is the best way instil language basics in the learners. According to Hirome, (2008); MoES, (2008a) argue, a language is best taught when pupils’ capacity to learn is still fresh and strong to grasp new ideas and the entire learning processes.
4.2.2 Kiswahili as a Language of the Armed Forces of Uganda
It was still maintained by the same category of interviewees, that is to say (38% of the interviewees) that Kiswahili language is still widely used in the armed forces.
They openly stated;
…go to the police forces, army barracks and some prison cells, they always use that Ugandan broken Kiswahili at all times, even in military schools, police officers children are encouraged to learn the language…police use Kiswahili for security purposes… It is true, that Kiswahili has been solemnly used by the armed forces of Uganda, which is a good motivation for the rest of the masses especially government ministries and civil societies of Uganda. This will result into the wide usage of
Kiswahili language throughout Uganda. Also, this point was mentioned by
(Mukama, 1989; Mazrui and Mazrui, 1995 and Moshi, 2006).
69
4.2.3 Kiswahili Role Still a Myth
However, only 25% of the interviewees admitted that in Uganda, Kiswahili hardly operates and no Ugandan can speak that language. The interviewees narrated that:
…is Kiswahili a Ugandan language? We do not know if there is anyone who speaks that language… It is a fact that Ugandans do not know the language. We hear Tanzanians and Kenyans students in Uganda speak Kiswahili but not Ugandans. Therefore its domains are not defined, may be news readers on televisions and radio stations… The above assertion clearly shows that, some language planners and policy makers have little knowledge about the language situations of Uganda. The researcher found out that the concerned interviewees had not lived in the country for the last fifteen years, and above all both interviewees’ tribe (Baganda) had been sighted by
Ssebunga, (2003) and Mukuthuria, (2009) as a tribe that viewed the introduction of
Kiswahili as a threat to their Kingdom’s political supremacy. The Baganda linked
Kiswahili language with Islamic religion and the language of the Arabs who carried out slave trade.
4.2.4 Kiswahili as a Commercial Language
Lastly, it was maintained by only 13% of the interviewees who stated that, Kiswahili language has been used for commercial purposes and business world of Uganda. This is evidenced in Indians shops around Kampala,
…Swahili is only used in the market places of Kampala where Congolese and traders from Tanzania and Kenya come to buy things, and you will find Ugandan traders trying hard with Swahili until they come to an agreement with these foreign traders… This can be attributed to the assumption that; language policy implementation is done by different agencies especially those in education, religious groups and non- 70
governmental organisations on behalf of the government (Anne-Marie, 2004 and
Gary, n.d). Further, it is noted that, some languages are given special roles in their domains of use, like in Japan and China where English is not used very widely in everyday life by the Chinese and Japanese, except in certain domains, such as in the business world. This has automatically helped these countries to achieve far-reaching language planning and general developments of these countries (Neville, n.d). This experience indicates that, in case other sectors like agriculture, medicine, transport and so on represent the same example like that of commerce and business in Uganda,
Kiswahili will swiftly spread to all parts of the country. And this will ease the communication gap that exists at the moment.
4.3 Factors that Hinder the Promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda According to
Language Policy Makers
In any state, country or nation, there are so many possibilities that tend to hinder the development and promotion of some languages; these include government failure to support, finance and poor planning for a particular language(s). This section presents different responses in relation to factors that hinder the promotion of Kiswahili language use in Uganda. This section includes responses from LPP makers/planners and language policy implementers/promoters. LPP makers/planners responses will be presented first and followed by those of language policy implementers/promoters. To ascertain these factors, a number of questions were asked to interviewees as follows, what does the language policy say about the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda?
The aim of this question was to find out if LPP makers/ planners and language implementers/promoters were aware of the existence of language policy and what it 71
says about Kiswahili and its promotion. This allows the LPP makers/planners as well as language implementers/promoters to fully involve themselves in the implementation in terms of promotion and development of Kiswahili for a sound language policy. The following were the responses from LPP makers/planners:
4.3.1 Teaching of Kiswahili language in the Ugandan Education Levels
Eighty eight percent (88%) of the interviewees agreed that the policy stipulates that the only way to promote Kiswahili is by teaching and using it in schools especially from primary schools upwards. This will prepare a child who grows up mastering the language. The responses were summarized as follows:
…the Ministry of Education introduced thematic curriculum…through it Kiswahili shall be mastered very well by our children…
Still, the same percentage, agreed that,
The best way to promote Kiswahili in Uganda is to introduce it in the educational institutions since most Ugandans now go to school, the government introduced UPE, and USE for Ugandans…students will have to learn it… The above statement indicates that, the government of Uganda under its ministries is ready to initiate and support the teaching of Kiswahili language in the Ugandan schools. This fosters and supports positively the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda as observed in Tanzania’s school system where Kiswahili language serves as a MoI in primary schools, and as a subject in Secondary and tertiary institutions (Swilla,
2009). It is maintained that, continuous use of Kiswahili as MoI in primary and its strengthening teaching in Tanzania’s schools is not only aimed at cementing strong linguistic background for students, but also at fostering the creation of national 72
language that can bring about national identity and social integration among
Tanzanians.
4.3.2 Unpopular Language Policy of Uganda
However, 25% of the interviewees from LPP makers responded that they were not sure if Uganda had a language policy, henceforth do not know what it stipulates about the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda. The researcher found out that, the concerned LPP policy makers had not only spent few months in their present positions and offices, but also the institutions they were previously working from, were not directly charged with language related matters of Uganda. This can be further observed by Cobarrubias (1983:64) comments on linguistic assimilation through colonization, when a Navy Officer was appointed as governor of the Guam
Island, the language of the island (Chamorro) which had been the language of religion and community affairs, under the influence of the new governor, the language was denied official status and was neither permitted as a MoI nor even as a mere subject in schools. And all official documents were kept in English only.
Therefore, this governor who had no linguistic background of the island was politically enthroned in such a position. This can be attributed to a reason as to why the concerned interviewees responded in such a way.
4.3.3 Limited Coordination for both LPP Makers and LP Implementers
The interviewees were also required to answer the second question which said: does your office as a language policy maker collaborate with policy implementers and promoters? The aim of the question was to find out if there was good working 73
atmosphere between LPP makers/planners and language policy implementers/promoters. It is maintained that, well defined working atmosphere between LPP makers and LP promoters paves way for the advancement of any programmes, the interviewees responded as follows;
Seventy five percent (75%) of the interviewees agreed that, there is working relationship between LPP makers and LP implementers. However they pointed out that, the existing relationship is not that much strong due to the fact that language policy implementers/promoters are very few and not well recognized. This therefore to certain extend hinders the working relationship between LPP makers and LP implementers as noted below:
…the collaboration could be there but we do not know each other well, especially teachers from secondary schools, we sometimes deal with university lecturers rather than secondary school teachers…though not so much but whenever there is a workshop and correspondences for them we usually forward… To add on the above, 38% of the responses indicated that, there is no collaboration between LPP and policy implementers as well as language promoters. This has been attributed to lack of communication channels between the two groups as stated below by the interviewees:
We rarely meet with these people, different ministries can meet without looking for teachers for example, we tend to do everything at ministerial level and draw up reports, sometimes we can disseminate information through the media…we lack enough financial capacity to frequently be with policy implementers… Such responses indicate that, Kiswahili will take a longer time for it to be fully implemented and incorporated in the Uganda’s multilingual settings because of the absence of a clearly defined working relationship between LPP makers and LP 74
promoters. This situation opposes Cobarrubias, (1983) argument that, people in power, social organisation and financial resources need to work hand in hand in the formulation and implementation of LPP matters in a multilingual settings such as that of Uganda. It is maintained that, for the implementation of language policy to succeed, there is need for a strong and supported positive collaboration between LPP makers and the LP implementers and language promoters.
4.3.4 Dysfunctional District Language Committees
The researcher further asked the interviewees a third question, whether Uganda has district language committees or national language body for Kiswahili? This was an important question because, DLCs and Language bodies are organisations with collective numbers of language specialists who are devoted and willing to develop, promote languages in terms of vocabulary extension, lexicon formation, issuing of publications and so on of a given language(s) in a given country. The establishment of language bodies is done at the district, regional or at national level. This question was intended to get information that would give a clear picture about Kiswahili’s recognition throughout Uganda. Below are the interviewees’ responses.
Seventy five percent (75%) of the interviewees responded that Uganda as a country has District Language Committees that deal with language issues throughout the country’s districts and regions. They maintained that, however much the DLCs are dysfunctional, but they are not directly in charge of Kiswahili language. They deal with other indigenous languages such as Luganda. They collectively reported that:
..Uganda had DLCs sometime back, but they are no longer functional, and their premises have been taken over…still we only know the DLC that was 75
around Kampala, above all, this DLC used to deal with Luganda but not Kiswahili language…
The above statement is inline with Ndoleriire’s (1996) assertions that Kiswahili has not been given an opportunity in Uganda for a long time. The absence of DLCs for a language will not only deny its promotion, but, also its development.
However, 38% of the interviewees indicated that, Uganda as a country does not have
DLCs at all; this can be attributed to the interviewees’ lack of linguistic background in their educational credentials. The importance of DLCs were once observed by the
Former President Quenzon of Philippines who maintained that, language bodies are crucial in a nation, and he recommended the establishment of language bodies and noted that language bodies will not only develop languages, but they act as a venue at which national, official languages can be prepared and later adopted by the whole country (Cobarrubias, 1983).
4.3.5 Failure of Campaigns towards Kiswahili Popularizations
Language awareness campaigns are motives associated with the bringing forth general knowledge about a language(s) to its users. Therefore, for any language that has a new status like Kiswahili in Uganda, there should be vigorous efforts by the government or its agencies to spearhead the dissemination of language information throughout the country. This will give chance to Ugandans to acknowledge and be inquisitive to learn such a language, hence its promotion. The LPP makers’ views regarding Kiswahili language awareness campaigns in Uganda are as follows:
Thirty eight percent (38%) of the interviewees indicated that the government of
Uganda attempted to launch language awareness campaigns. Interviewees reported 76
that the programme failed since not all government institutions participated positively towards it. This can be attributed to the historical factors that hindered
Kiswahili promotion in Uganda, these include; negative attitudes towards Kiswahili because, they argued that Kiswahili is not the first language for most Ugandans, henceforth no need for its advocacy in the country.
However, 75% of the interviewees stated that, they were not sure if the government launched campaigns on general awareness about Kiswahili to the public, as indicated below;
…Kiswahili has always been here, we are not sure if the government had to tell people about it.
The same percentage stated that,
...no language campaigns awareness that government has done as yet…since it is an official language, These assertions indicate that, Kiswahili awareness campaigns were unpopular; hence an opposition to Cobarrubias (1983) comments that once a language gains a status, additional planning is needed for its functionality. He calls for the adoption of that language into the education and religion systems to mention but a few. These will in turn, for the case of Uganda clear the negative attitudes that Kiswahili has in
Uganda. Kiswahili will register a new image in peoples’ insights and attitudes, hence the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda.
4.3.6 Little Financial Support for the Promotion of Kiswahili
Financial budget is the amount of money that government sets aside to run different activities for the country, of which the implementation of LP is among. Financial assistance in terms of LP implementation can be utilized in the publishing of 77
Kiswahili books, payment of salaries and fringe benefits to different Kiswahili agents among others. On the issue of government budget to support Kiswahili promotion, the interviewees responded as follows:
Seventy five percent (75%) of the interviewees indicated that the government allocate funds for the language related matters of the country. The budget does not only cater for Kiswahili, it is general and provides for all languages in Uganda, as reported below:
… the government sets aside some money to be used in the language related matters of the country but not only for Kiswahili alone… They went ahead and said:
some countries offer financial assistance to Uganda so that some languages are catered for, such countries include Germany, Saudi Arabia…these countries have helped so much in the development and learning of languages like Arabic, Germany and even English. The above statement positively indicates that the government of Uganda supports its multilingual setting and is ready to strengthen its cultural ethnicity. However, it is maintained that, promotion of multilingualism should be done uniformly in all languages throughout the country. This will bring about equal treatment of all languages, hence, the promotion and development.
However, 38% of the interviewees said that they were not sure whether the government sets aside money for the promotion of Kiswahili in the country. This can be attributed to lack of linguistics knowledge and qualifications of the interviewees.
Most LPP makers had political experience as opposed to language related matters of
Uganda. This situation supports Cobarrubias (1983) philosophy of “Political independence does not necessarily mean linguistic independence.” 78
4.4 Factors that Hinder the Promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda According to
Language Policy Implementers/ Promoters
Language promoters are technical people, whose major role is to see language is put into practice and functions in a society through teaching, publications of books, using the language in the media and so on. Such contributions play a bigger role in the promotion of a given language (s) within that society. Four interviewees from the academia and three from the media were interviewed, a number of questions were asked to university lecturers and personnel from media houses of Uganda, to cater for the specific objectives 1.2 and 1.3, as follows: Are you aware that Uganda has a language policy? This question was intended to find out whether language promoters are aware of the existence of language policy in Uganda under which language matters are regulated. The following were the responses from the university lecturers:
4.4.1 Unpopular Language Policy of Uganda
Sixty seven percent (67%) of the interviewees accepted that they were aware of
Ugandan language policy, and 33% of the interviewees who is a Kenyan national, and has been in Uganda for the last four years, indicated that she were not aware of the language policy’s existence in Uganda. This can be summarized as follow;
…am not certain about that, it could be there but am not just informed about it. I think if it is not there, there is need to prepare it since language issue is a major problem for Uganda as a country. The above situation may indicate that, there is limited working relationship between
LPP makers/planners and language implementers/promoters hence, opposses
Cobarrubias (1983) argument that, people in power, social organisation and financial 79
resources need to work hand in hand in the formulation and implementation of LPP matters in a multilingual setting such as that of Uganda. It is maintained that, for implementation of LP to succeed, there should be a strong and supported positive collaboration between different stakeholders involved in decision making and the entire implementation process of the LP. Hence, this will not only allow free channelling of information, but it will also allow smooth implementation of the language policy.
The second question to the interviewees was; how do you promote Kiswahili? This question was intended to find out different methods that language policy implementers/promoters use in the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda. The responses to this question are categorised into the following thematic areas:
4.4.2 Low Recruitment of Kiswahili Teachers on the Government Payroll
A hundred percent (100%) of the interviewees from the academia reported to have been promoting the language through teaching in Ugandan universities and secondary schools. However, they pointed to have been disappointed due to long working hours with little payments, they maintained that, working part time jobs in the government institutions is really a burden to them. This indicates that, they have low morale towards work and towards the promotion of Kiswahili.
4.4.3 Absence of Kiswahili Literature and Publications from Uganda
Seventy five percent (75%) of interviewees indicated that writing of Kiswahili text books and pamphlets was the best way to promote the language since people would buy and read these books. However, they went ahead to say. 80
…the books we write do not have ready markets; most Kiswahili markets have Kiswahili books from Tanzania and Kenya. We cannot buy our own books…we end up stopping publishing. The last part of the above statement strongly agrees with what already has been mentioned in Chapter Two that indicated there is no Kiswahili publications produced, the writing of textbooks is almost a forgotten issue (Hirome, 2008). This makes Kiswahili promotion difficult.
4.4.4 Negative Attitude towards Kiswahili Language
Thirty five percent (35%) of the interviewees indicated that, they fight against negative attitude towards Kiswahili, this is done by telling people how Kiswahili has curb down communication barriers between people from different ethnic groups in
Tanzania and Kenya, the desire by foreigners to learn Kiswahili indicates that
Kiswahili language is being recognized internationally like other languages.
However, interviewees maintained that, majority of Ugandans still have negative historical perspectives towards Kiswahili, as stated below;
…We love our mother tongues, we know the bad history of Kiswahili language, and we cannot learn it at all…
Such a response indicates that, a number of Ugandans still love their mother tongues
(L1), hence the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda might not be an easy exercise, if the intended speakers are not ready to learn Kiswahili language.
The above responses from the academia address question (ii) on specific objective
1.3.1.2. Below are the responses from the media house personnel on addressing the same question and specific objective.
81
4.4.5. Unrecognized Kiswahili Audiences
Seventy five percent (75%) of the interviewees indicated that, they promote
Kiswahili through media houses such as radio stations and television in the form of reading news bulletins.
…We come in the morning and read news, go in the field to collect information, to be read as news in the evening, only that… Also, another 75% of the interviewees indicated that, they speak Kiswahili language in different public and private domains. However, they all pointed out that, they need to be given radio and television programmes other than reading news bullets so that they can interact with their audience. One of the interviewees had this to say,
…I do not know my listeners, and I do not know if I have audience...
This shows that, however much the media house personnel read news bulletins to the
Uganda population, there will be no Kiswahili promotion if there is no feedback from the population.
4.4.6 Few Kiswahili Hours per Week
It was noted that, in the academia world (secondary and universities), Kiswahili language is given three hours per week, within the three hours, two hours are for practical teaching and one hour is used for presentations, laboratory work, and handling of tests and assignments, among others. Furthermore, Kiswahili is used only for two hours in primary schools. However, it was noted that in the media houses, Kiswahili language is given between 20 to 30 minutes daily and roughly 5 hours per week as shown in Table 4.7 82
Table 4.7: Distribution of Time for Kiswahili Teachings and Programs
Domains Categories Minutes Days Hours per Percentage week Education Primary 60 2 2:00 08.34% Secondary 60 3 3:00 12.50% Tertiary 60 3 3:00 12.50% Media Radio R1 45 7 5:25 21.89% Houses R2 40 7 5:06 19.46% Television Tv1 22 7 2:56 10.70% Tv2 30 7 3:30 14.59% Total 317 56 24:07 100% Source: Field (2010). KEY: R= Radio, TV= Television.
With the above data, it is maintained that Kiswahili is given least hours in both media houses and education levels weekly. This has a greater impact on Kiswahili promotion due to the fact that, time allocation determines the hour at which students can interact with their teacher as far as language lessons are concerned in schools, so is in the media hours. Therefore, the more the time a language is assigned to the language learners, the quicker the learners can grasp that particular language
(Majola, 2005).
4.4.7 Shortage of Kiswahili Manpower
Language promotion need sufficient manpower for its success, therefore the interviewees were asked the following question: Are there enough personnel to work with in the promotion of Kiswahili? This question was intended to find out whether, there is enough manpower in the institutions that promote Kiswahili. The following were the responses from the academia:
A hundred percent (100%) of interviewees from learning institutions indicated that, manpower is their major problem; they are very few at their working stations, hence 83
are they overworked due to heavy teaching load. The four interviewees emphasized their point by saying:
… We are very few indeed, we work until Sunday and students are many… This is a negative motive if Kiswahili is to attain its positive goals as far as its promotion is concerned. This problem has also been observed by MoES through its
RESSP (2008:15) and agrees that, Kiswahili language teachers have been a problem in Uganda. There is therefore, a need to prepare and employ desirable number of language teaching staff to assist in the promotion of Kiswahili language in Uganda.
However, only 33% of the interviewees, from BBC radio maintained that, at BBC station, manpower is sufficient and this is because BBC pays its employees better salaries compared to other media houses; this allows workers to keep at work at all times due to favourable working conditions. However, 67% of the interviewees responded that manpower is a big problem to them, making them doing translation, anchoring for news, editing as well as reading bulletins in Kiswahili. They further argued that:
…sometime the work load is too much that we fail to translate into Kiswahili, the subtitles on television...we are only two Kiswahili presenters here, we have to go to the field too to speak to the people, and it is tiresome…. Lack of enough manpower in Ugandan media was previously sighted by Chibita
(2006) who argues that the promotion of Kiswahili will take longer if manpower problem is not solved.
In summary therefore, this section has presented factors that hinder the promotion of
Kiswahili in Uganda, among them are lack of language awareness campaigns, little financial assistance from the government, presence of dysfunctional DLCs, 84
insufficient manpower. Therefore, if these factors are positively considered by LPP,
Kiswahili promotion will thrive in Uganda.
4.5 Language Policy Makers Responses on Factors which are Likely to
Promote Kiswahili in Ugandan Context for a Sound Language Policy
Once a language(s) has attained a higher status compared to its previous status, efforts need to be made for that language(s) to be widely promoted. This section therefore presents responses of possible alternatives that will promote Kiswahili in
Uganda. To ascertain these factors, a number of questions were asked to the interviewees. In line with the questions, their responses are categorised into the following thematic areas:
4.5.1 Urgency to Invite Foreign Language Specialists
Foreign language specialists are technical personnel that go to a country that needs technical assistance on various issues. Since Uganda’s language situation is not at the equilibrium, there is need to invite foreign language experts to come and fill the gap of manpower as well as train Ugandans on matters related to LPP. To ascertain this factor, the following question was asked; Is the government of Uganda Ready to invite foreign language specialists to assist in this cause? The response to this question is as follows;
It was maintained by 100% of all the interviewees that the government of Uganda is ready to invite foreign specialists to assist in the technical part of promoting
Kiswahili in the country (IoLMUPP, n.d) 85
…it is in the making that, projects to invite foreign experts from Tanzania and Kenya are underway. Just like we sent English teachers in Rwanda, we are also ready to get them here too… Also, IoLMUPP (n.d) noted that,
…the German, Spanish, Italian and Chinese embassies in Uganda have played a greater role and are continuing to give support to their languages courses by provision of some teaching materials, and sending language experts to prepare degree programmes for the Institute… These experts will not only increase the number of language experts in the country, but they will also take part in the publication of Kiswahili literature, dictionaries, develop new terminology of Kiswahili, teach at secondary schools and other tertiary institutions, also serve as translators to Ugandans to mention but a few. In this way
Kiswahili will be promoted at a higher rate in the country,
4.5.2 Establishment of Kiswahili National Council
The researcher wanted to know from the interviewees whether the government of
Uganda intends to establish Kiswahili National Council. The National Council of a language(s) is the overall body of language experts and linguists that play different roles as far as a language(s) is concerned in the country. The Council will be in position to develop lexicons, vocabularies, books, dictionaries, and to determine which is the standards language to be used officially, determine the language of instruction in educational levels to mention but a few.
A hundred percent (100%) of all interviewees admitted that the government will be in position to establish a Kiswahili National Council that will deal directly with
Kiswahili related matters in Uganda (UNCP, 2006). Some responses were quoted as;
If the government recognizes Kiswahili, then we are sure it will be in position to set up a Council to safe guard and promote the language… 86
It is obvious that the government once given support will utilize it by setting up a permanent structure in charge of Kiswahili…
We think the institute of language at Makerere can act for the time being until the government sets up a new structure specifically for Kiswahili… Such responses correspond with Cobarrubias’s (1983) comments that, there is need to establish, an institute of national language which will study different languages and dialects in general for the purpose of developing and adopting a common national language, which is a positive step for its development and promotion. The presence of Kiswahili Council in Uganda will not only support the promotion of
Kiswahili nationally, but the Council will work in conjunction with other regional
Kiswahili Councils such as BAKITA and BAKIKE in order to harmonize regional social integrity within the multilingual settings.
4.6 Language Policy Implementers/Promoters Responses on Factors which
are Likely to Promote Kiswahili in Ugandan Context for a Sound
Language Policy
There are various factors that are assumed to be supportive in the promotion of a given language(s); these factors include identification of challenges and how to overcome them. To identify challenges in the process of promoting Kiswahili in
Uganda, the interviewees were required to identify and state the challenges facing the promotion of Kiswahili. The following were their responses:
Fifty seven percent (57%) of the interviewees indicated that, language promoters find it challenging to promote/ use Kiswahili especially in classes or during radio and television interviews since most of the Ugandans do not use Kiswahili as their first language; therefore, a lot of work is assigned to translations and use code switching 87
and code mixing to simplify communication. This point is also agreed by Camitta’s
(1993) assertions that code mixing and code switching supports communication pattern among people from different ethnicity backgrounds.
More than that, 34% of the interviewees reported that, negative attitude is one of the challenges against Kiswahili in Uganda. This cements Mukama’s (1989) argument that Kiswahili is the language of the armed forces; therefore it cannot be used by civilians, since the armed forces practiced brutality to the people of Uganda in the post independence era. This therefore reduces their efforts to the promotion of
Kiswahili.
With such responses, it is clear that the promotion of Kiswahili is slowed down because the population under study still have negative attitude and yet the language is not their first language. There is need for the government to carry out sensitization campaigns as well as public awareness about Kiswahili language; these include, instilling positive image about Kiswahili within the people’s minds, informing the society about the current positions of Kiswahili worldwide, Kiswahili as a unifying language in Both Tanzania and Kenya, used in the Computer and
Telecommunication programmes among others, which Cobarrubias (1983) argues, learning a language is every persons right and needs to be considered positively.
4.7 Strategies to Overcome Challenges
In any way, if challenges exist in the system, there are different ways of overcoming them; below are responses on how language promoters think they may overcome these challenges for the betterment of Kiswahili in Uganda. 88
Forty three percent (43%) of the interviewees indicated that, language promoters should try hard to convince the population to try and speak Kiswahili for their own advantage. This will help them to grasp the language and get conversant with the necessary knowledge about Kiswahili. Daily practice of a language makes it perfect, therefore, there is need to constantly utilize and put the language (Kiswahili) use into practice. These alternatives are in line with Cobarrubias’ (1983) assertion that, for any language to develop and be promoted there should be a given number of speakers, who are willing to speak and use it daily. This is a possible alternative to the challenge that Kiswahili is not the first language to most Ugandans and will support Kiango’s (2002) assertion that the number of Kiswahili speakers is on the increase throughout the world, Uganda inclusive.
Forty three percent (43%) of the interviewees indicated that, language promoters should encourage code switching and code mixing with their clients. Use of
Kiswahili, English and any other language in an interview, conversation or teaching allows proper flow of communication. This alternative is in line with Camitta’s
(1993) comments that, code-switching and code-mixing positively support communication patterns and exhibits the highest degree of either bilingualism or multilingualism. Mpuga (2003) argues code switching and code mixing not only passes out intended information, but also adds vocabulary capacity of the two individuals involved in communication.
However, 29% of the interviewees responded that, language promoters should do a lot of translations to overcome language barrier problems. Translations are made so that the intended content of information is positively passed on from one person to 89
another. This is better for Kiswahili since it adds skills and general understanding of the language between two individuals involved in communication. This can further be carried out by supporting Haugen’s (1983) implementation process of his four- fold model, which involves the production of books, pamphlets, news papers and textbooks to mention but a few. This will reduce grammatical errors, intensify reading culture among the masses, learn how to read and write and so translation be perfected, to enable the mastering of a language like Kiswahili in Uganda.
90
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This Chapter concludes the findings of the study. The Chapter summaries the roles of
Kiswahili at national and international levels, the roles of Kiswahili at Uganda, factors that hinder the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda, factors that are likely to promote Kiswahili in the Ugandan context for a sound language policy, the Chapter further, states the contribution of the study and makes recommendation as well as identifying areas for further research.
5.1 The Roles of Kiswahili at National and International Levels
This sub-section concludes the findings as far as the roles of Kiswahili at national and international levels are concerned. These roles include the following:
5.1.1 Kiswahili as an East African Language
The findings of the study indicate that Kiswahili language has a wider coverage in
East of Africa; this is due to the fact that, the language is used daily in Tanzania and
Kenya for communication purposes among the people of different ethnic groups and linguistic backgrounds (Msanjila, 2002). Thus, as part of East African countries,
Uganda had to choose a language (Kiswahili) that already has deep roots in other member states, in order to harmonize the East African linguistic profile.
91
5.1.2 Kiswahili as a Regional Lingua Franca
The findings reveal that, Kiswahili is a language that is being used throughout the region in the East and Central Africa. Kiswahili language brings together nationalities from Sudan, DRC, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia among others, who formally or informally use Kiswahili language in their communication.
Therefore, there is a need to choose it to be incorporated in the Uganda’s multilingual settings, and be developed uniformly throughout the region for social, economic, cultural and political advancement.
5.1.3 Kiswahili as the Most Developed Language as Compared to Other
Indigenous Languages of Uganda
Kiswahili stood to be the only well developed, recognized and widely spread language not only in Uganda, but beyond the geographical boundaries of Uganda. Its development and spread is viewed in terms of its literature, its use in both regional and international media, as a language of regional organisations such as EAC and
AU, is used as a communication tool for countries around the region among others
(Kiango, 2002). Hence, Kiswahili posed to be chosen as an official language in the
Ugandan multilingual settings.
5.2 The Roles of Kiswahili at Uganda
This sub-section concludes the findings as far as the roles of Kiswahili at Uganda are concerned. The roles are categorized into the following thematic areas:
92
5.2.1 Kiswahili as a School Subject
Kiswahili is still a school subject in all educational levels of Uganda, ranging from primary to tertiary institutions. This can be explained by two reasons. Firstly, in 2008
MoES of Uganda reviewed its primary education curriculum, and Kiswahili among other languages was to be taught as a subject to equip the learners with basic communication skills. Secondly, Kiswahili has been taught as a subject in secondary schools and tertiary institutions, this is because of the increased enrolment capacity of students from Kenya and Tanzania, who opt to study Kiswahili in their subject combinations. Under such circumstances, Kiswahili has positive signs to be promoted in Ugandan context.
5.2.2 Kiswahili as a Language of the Armed Forces of Uganda
Kiswahili is still a language of armed forces that is used for security purposes throughout the country. This is because, Uganda’s armed forces such as police, the army, prisons and even private security companies have been and still use Kiswahili language in their communications cycles. Intensive use of Kiswahili language is observed in the commemoration of historical days such as the Heroes’, and
Liberation days’ cerebrations in Uganda. It is the language for commanding troops, forces as well as in the military training drills.
5.2.3 Kiswahili as a Commercial Language
Kiswahili is partially used in the commercial arena of Uganda; this allows Uganda traders to communicate freely with traders from neighbouring countries. As noted earlier, Kampala is a commercial city of Uganda, and majority of Ugandans (city 93
dwellers) are business men and women. Most of their buyers come from Tanzania,
DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Sudan to mention but a few. DRC, Rwanda and Burundi use French in their daily communications. The Sudanese use Dinka and Arabic, which is unlike Uganda where Luganda is a LWC. Therefore, the only language that can at least be understood by every trader from the above countries remains to be
Kiswahili.
5.2.4 Kiswahili as a Media Language
Both national and private media houses of Uganda broadcast in Kiswahili especially the news bulletins. This is also observed in the television channels and radio frequencies from Tanzania and Kenya that are received in Uganda such as; the East
African Television (EATV), Independent Television (ITV), East African Radio from
Tanzania, and Citizen Television, Kenya Broadcasting Cooperation (KBC) from
Kenya. The programmes aired by these Channels have a greater influence towards the realization of the importance of Kiswahili as a regional lingua franca for the East
African population.
5.3 Factors that Appear to Hinder the Promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda According to Language Policy Makers
The current sub-section concludes the findings of the study in relation to the factors that hinder the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda. The factors are categorized into the following thematic areas:
5.3.1 The Teaching of Kiswahili in the Ugandan Education Levels
The government through MoES has started taking action to implement the LP of
Uganda through teaching Kiswahili in education cycles of Uganda from primary to 94
tertiary institutions. However, in primary schools the practical teaching has not yet begun. This is explained by the fact that the government had not yet trained
Kiswahili language teachers to embark on teaching in schools. Furthermore, the syllabi had not yet been prepared for the commencement of the entire exercise.
Therefore, this calls for government’s financial support and contributions to MoES to fulfil its expectations and Mission, for proper planning and promotion of Kiswahili language in Uganda.
5.3.2 Limited Co-ordination between LPP Makers and LP Implementers
The working relationship between LPP makers/planners and language policy implementers/promoters is limited. This allows LPP makers/planners to formulate policies, without the inclusion of other stakeholders, in this case, LP implementers/promoters. This can be attributed to the fact that the formation of LP was a political decree that only involved a few government officials to formulate the
LP, without the involvement of the LP implementers.
5.3.3 Dysfunctional District Language Committees for Kiswahili
The DLCs are dysfunctional and not specifically for Kiswahili. Rather, they deal with other indigenous languages as well. The Baganda under their Kingdom made some efforts to promote Luganda throughout the country. This has made Luganda not only to be rich in literature, but also as a LWC in Uganda. Thus, Kiswahili has to be positively recognized by the government of Uganda, there is need to establish
Kiswahili language committees and bodies so that the language can be fully catered for by Kiswahili language specialists from both within and outside the country. 95
5.3.4 Failure of Campaigns Towards Kiswahili Promotion
The government of Uganda has reluctantly carried out awareness campaigns about
Kiswahili language as a second official language of Uganda. On that note therefore, the popularization and promotion of Kiswahili is left hanging. It is maintained that, the government of Uganda lacks commitment and political will concerning Kiswahili language use especially in government offices and public domains. It has been observed in the recent concluded 2011 Presidential and Parliamentary elections that,
Presidential and Parliamentary candidates used English and other indigenous languages in their campaigns rather than Kiswahili which is their official language.
Political leaders have higher chances to popularize a language(s) since they have bigger audience (constituencies) than a mere Primary school teacher teaching
Kiswahili to a limited number of learners. It is worthy noting that, different leaders of the country need to use and popularize Kiswahili so as to promote it among
Ugandans especially because Kiswahili is the only language so far that can foster linguistic unity among Ugandans from multilingual setting.
5.3.5 Replacement of Language Specialists by Non-Language Specialists
Some LPP makers/planners and language policy implementers/promoters were ignorant about the existence of language policy of Uganda. This was attributed to the fact that some of the interviewees were still new in their current positions at the time of the interview. Thus, they lacked linguistic background, and others had stayed out of the country for more than a decade. Under such circumstances, it is maintained that, for language policy to be well implemented, the government should ensure that, 96
the policy is evaluated periodically, make it mandatory for officers in charge of language related matters, to have a background in linguistics.
5.3.6 Little Financial Support for the Promotion of Kiswahili
The government of Uganda sets financial budget for the promotion of multilingualism in Uganda. These funds are not necessary for Kiswahili language, but for all developed languages in Uganda, inclusive English. The rationale was that, most Ugandans use their mother tongues as their first languages hence preserve their people’s cultures and traditions in their indigenous languages. This promotes cultural unity and integration within ethnicities.
As mentioned earlier, English promotion is done by the British Government through the British Council in Uganda; therefore, it is high time the government of Uganda invested in the planning and promotion of Kiswahili language throughout the country. Uganda therefore needs to re-direct its financial contributions towards the promotion of one unifying language in Uganda, which is Kiswahili language.
5.3.7 The Closure of Primary Teachers’ Colleges
The manpower in terms of Kiswahili language promoters is not enough in all avenues especially in schools. The closure of some Primary Teachers’ Colleges
(PTCs) by the government, that specifically produced qualified primary teachers for all subjects, Kiswahili inclusive, reduced the number of graduate teachers annually in
Uganda. This is a negative sign for the promotion of Kiswahili in Uganda.
97
5.4 Factors which are Likely to Promote Kiswahili in the Ugandan Context for a Sound Language Policy
This sub-section concludes the findings of the study as far as the factors which are likely to promote Kiswahili in Uganda are concerned. The factors have been categorized into the following thematic areas:
5.4.1 Invitation of Foreign Language Specialists for Kiswahili
The government of Uganda is ready to invite Kiswahili foreign language specialists to assist in the technical part of promoting Kiswahili in the country. This was attributed by the government’s will to promote and strengthen the use of Kiswahili beyond its current confinements in Uganda. It was evident that the government of
Uganda acknowledges that Tanzania and Kenya produce more advanced and qualified Kiswahili language experts, who could render their services in Uganda. The fact that the government of Rwanda is taking its English teachers from Uganda for the teaching of English language in Rwandan educational cycles; similarly Uganda is ready to invite foreign language specialists. The specialists will render their services in publishing Kiswahili literature, making of dictionaries, develop new Kiswahili terminologies. This move will advance Kiswahili language promotion in Uganda.
5.4.2 Establishment of the Kiswahili National Council
The government of Uganda is ready to establish a Kiswahili National Council that will deal directly with Kiswahili related matters in the country. This is because, the
EAC is in the process to initiate the establishment of the East African Kiswahili
Council (EAKC), EAKC will act as an umbrella for Kiswahili Councils in EAC member states, such as; BAKITA for Tanzania, and BAKIKE for Kenya. On that 98
note, it is maintained that, Uganda establishes its own language Council that will coordinate, facilitate and implement Kiswahili programs within and outside the country on behalf of the country.
5.4.3 Change of Language Attitudes Towards Kiswahili
Language Policy implementers/ promoters have continuously restored among the
Ugandans the pride Kiswahili language has, they identify different status that
Kiswahili language has worldwide, these include; being the regional lingua franca, being among the languages chosen for incorporation not only in the internationally renown computer companies (Linux and Microsoft) programmes, but also as a working language for EAC and AU. This pride will revamp the glory that Kiswahili had, hence its promotion and development in the country.
5.4.4 Putting the Language into Practice
Kiswahili is not the first language to most Ugandans; therefore, LP implementers/promoters have contributed their time to see to it that Ugandans try to speak Kiswahili as much as they can so as to master the four language learning skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking the language. This will not only help them to have a firm base for Kiswahili language, but it will also contribute towards proficiency and perfection of the attested language.
5.4.5 Use of Code Switching and Code Mixing
Language Policy implementers/promoters encourage Ugandans to apply the code- switch and code-mix mechanism in their daily conversation. Use of more that one language in a conversation not only allows the language learner to grasp new 99
terminology and language use, but it also prepares the learner to be fluent in different languages and be in a position to communicate with people from different linguistic backgrounds and ethnicities.
5.5 The Contribution of the Study
This study intends to advance further the scholarship of sociolinguistics, specifically on language policy and language planning. The findings of the study have shown that, among others, in Uganda, the cooperation and collaboration between language policy makers and language policy implementers is limited. Also, the promotion of
Kiswahili language is hampered by lack of Kiswahili language Committees and bodies throughout the country. These have continuously hampered the efforts of promoting Kiswahili in Uganda. Prior to this study, such findings were not published, therefore not known by scholars and language students around the region.
It is within this context that, the results of this study will not only advance further the scholarship of sociolinguistics, but also they will have a positive academic contribution to researchers, scholars, and students in understanding the current sociolinguistic profile of Uganda.
5.6 Recommendations
In light of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are being made with regards to the alternative ways of promoting Kiswahili language in the
Ugandan multilingual situation. The recommendations are as follows:
100
5.6.1 Kiswahili as a Regional Language
It is recommended that, the government should make deliberate efforts towards the realisation of the importance of Kiswahili language in uniting the region; hence massive promotion in language awareness campaigns should begin. The government should finance language institutions to translate English information guides into
Kiswahili language. This will help visitors from the region and who do not know
English to read and understand the translated Kiswahili version of the English word, as it is done in Tanzania and Kenya, and other countries in the world. This should target places with the following characteristics; Firstly, those which are full of people throughout the day. Secondly, those which are frequently visited by people. They include, public offices, airports, national stadium, schools’ premises, religious places, public markets, roads, streets, and so on.
5.6.2 Insufficient Kiswahili Teachers in Uganda
The study recommends the revival and re-introduction of the PTCs throughout
Uganda, so as to increase the number of graduates who are ready to take teaching obligations in the education system of Uganda. This will not only reduce the shortage of language teachers in schools, but it will provide employment opportunities to some Ugandans who will be employed in the education sector as Kiswahili teachers.
In line with the above, the government of Uganda should increase the number of
Primary Teachers’ Colleges (PTCs) especially in the areas where they have never existed. This will not only produce qualified teachers, but it will also increase the number of Kiswahili teachers in the country. 101
5.6.3 Kiswahili should be a Compulsory Subject in Primary and Secondary Education
Additionally, efforts should be made to make Kiswahili a compulsory subject to all students from primary to secondary schools. And to let Kiswahili be studied as other subjects in tertiary institutions. This will help students to grasp all the four skills of learning a language(s) (reading, listening, writing and speaking). This will in turn give a positive attributes for the future of Kiswahili language in Uganda.
5.6.4 Working Relationship between LPP Makers and LP Implementers
The study recommends that the government of Uganda should set up a working mechanism between its parastatal organs, agencies, and the Private sectors, so that there is a direct connection and coordination during decision making and in the dissemination of information among different stakeholders related to language matters of the country. Additionally, the government of Uganda should learn that language matters are very crucial to the development of the nation, thus, the people who work in language related offices should be with education language background.
This will help the country in the proper planning and implementation of its language policy.
5.6.5 Establishment of the Kiswahili National Council
The study further recommends that, the government of Uganda should establish a
Kiswahili National Council that will be in charge of directing, coordinating, mobilizing and promoting Kiswahili related matters in Uganda. The Council will 102
additionally, help the government to attract foreign language specialists to come into the country and assist in the teaching, and publishing of books.
5.6.6 Formation of Structural Framework for Kiswahili Promotion
It is recommended that Linguists and language experts should develop a structural and operational framework on how the language policy of Uganda can be harmonized in the Uganda’s multilingual settings. The framework should be directly addressed to the ministry in charge of languages in Uganda. This structure should show different positions, functions and roles for each stakeholder. The structure should incorporate other ministries, agencies and organisations that play a vital role in the facilitation, coordination and promotion of a sound language policy in Uganda.
5.6.7 The Bid for the Annual Kiswahili Day Celebrations
It is recommended that, like in Tanzania, the government of Uganda should set a public “Kiswahili day”. The day should be recognized and celebrated like other days such as Heroes’ and Independence days among others. Kiswahili language practitioners should be honoured, Kiswahili literature, cultural, songs as well as plays should be shown to Ugandans. By doing this, the day will not only clear a historical distortion on Kiswahili language, but it will act as a special day throughout the country in recognising the importance of Kiswahili as a unifying force among
Ugandans.
5.6.8 Regarding the Involvement of Ugandan Language Specialists
It is maintained that there is an increase on the number of graduates who are language specialists in the country. Therefore, the study recommends for their 103
inclusion in the formation of LP and its promotion in Uganda. The specialists will be helpful in the searching for effective language planning processes and implementation related programmes and projects throughout the country.
5.7 Further Research Areas
Considering, that there is no clear working relationship between LPP makers and language promoters, it is recommended that, further research be done on the appointment and employment procedures of LPP makers/planners in charge of language related offices in Uganda. Also, further research can be done on LPP makers and other language stakeholders to find out their genuine representations to the government, let their roles be amicably identified and researched on. 104
REFERENCES
Abdulaziz, Y. (1993). “The Language Situation in Africa Today,” in Nordic Journal of African Studies 2(1): 79-86.
Amidu, A. A. (1995). “Kiswahili, a Continental Language, how is it?” (Part 1), in Nordic Journal of African Studies 4(2): 50-72.
Amin, M. E. (2004). Social Science Research: Conception, Methodology and Analysis, Kampala: Makerere University Printer.
Anchimbe, E. (2006). “Functional Seclusion and the Future of Indigenous Languages in Africa: the Case of Cameroon” In Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Mugane, J.et al., (Eds.), 94-103.
Anne-Marie, B. (2004). “The First Ten Years of Democracy; Language Policy of South Africa,” on Congress of Linguistic Diversity, Sustainability and Peace, Barcelona.
Bamgbose, A. (1991). Language and the Nation: The language question in Sub Saharan Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bamgbose, A. (2004). “Language of Instruction Policy and Practice in Africa,” http://www.unesco.org/education/languages_2004/languageinstructio n_africapdf. Retrieved on 15th June, 2010
Barrie, G. (2000). Media Research Methods. London: Sage Publications.
Batibo, H. (2005). “Language Decline and Death in Africa: Causes, Consequences and Challenges,” Multilingual Matters: Clevedon
Benji, W. (1987). “Swahili and the Bantu Languages” in Bernard, C. (Ed.) (1987), The World’s Major Languages. London: Routledge.
Brock-Utne, B. (1997). “Decolonizing the African Mind; Education in Africa.” vol.4, Report no.8, University of Oslo. 105
Bryman, A. (2004). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge.
Camitta, M. (1993). “Vernacular writing; Varieties of Literacy among Philadelphia High School Students” in Street, B.V (Ed.) Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy, 228-246, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chibita, B. (2006). “Indigenous Language Programming and Citizen Participation in Uganda Broadcasting”: An Explanatory Study. (Ph.D. Thesis), University of South Africa.
Christine, B.P. and Tucker, G.R. (Eds.) (2003). Sociolinguistics; the Essential Readings, New York: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
Citizen, (2009). “No Plans to Open New Embassies”, 9th December, 2009; pp.1&2. Dar es salaam: Mwananchi Communication Ltd.
Cobarrubias, J. (1983). “Ethical Issues in Status Planning”, in J. Cobarrubias and J. Fishman (Eds.) Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives (pp.41-85), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Coolican, H. (1992). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Crystal, D. (1997a). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd Edition; Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997b). English as a Global Language, 2nd Edition; Cambridge University Press.
Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects, Buckingham: Open University.
Djité, P.G. (2008). “Globalization and Languages: Building on our Rich Heritage” United Nations-Japan: University of Tokyo. 106
East Africa Research Information Center, (1969). Language Problems in Africa. A Bibliography (1946-1967) and Summary of the Present Situation with Special Reference to Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
Eva-Marie, S. (2009). “The Situation of Ndengeleko; a Coastal Tanzanian Language” (P10) University of Gothenburg
Fraenkel, J. and Wallen, N. (2000). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, Bonston: MacGraw Hill.
Freire, P. (1999). De undertryktes Pedagogikk, Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo
Gary, P. (n.d). A comment on Naville, Alexander’s “Language Policy and Planning in the New South Africa.” Dept. of Linguistics and English Language, Rhodes University.
Gordon, R. G., Jr. (Ed.) (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Fifteenth Edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/, retrieved on 18th December, 2010.
Government White Paper (1992). “Education Policy Review Commission Report,” Kampala: UPPC
Habwe, J. (2009). “The Role of Kiswahili in the Integration of East Africa,” in Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol.2, no.8.
Haugen, E. (1983). “The Implementation of Corpus Planning: Theory and Practice,” in J. Cobarrubias and J. Fishman (Eds.). Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Hirome, J. (2008). “Language Educational Policy and Multilingual Illiteracies in Ugandan Primary Schools,” (Ph.D Dissertation) Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Institute of Languages Makerere University, (n.d). “Construction of a New Block for Makerere University Institute of Languages.” Kampala: Makerere University. 107
Jernudd, B. and J. Gupta. (1971). Towards a Theory of Language Planning. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Jill, C. and Roger, H. (2009). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. 3rd Edition, Palgrave: Macmillan-UK.
Kabananukye, K. and Kwagala, D. (2007). “Cultural Minorities and Linguistic Rights In Uganda” The Case of the Batwa and the Ik, in Huripec Working Paper No. 11, pp 1-41.
Kaddu, P.J. (1983). Essaawa Etuuse Afrika Okuzuukuka. Kisubi: Marianum.
Kaji, S. (2004). A Runyankore Vocabulary; Japan: Sanrei Printing Co. Ltd
Kahigi, K. K. (2004). “Utumizi wa Lugha za Asili katika Elimu; Changamoto, Matatizo na Fursa Zilizopo,” in Languages of Tanzania Project, Dar es Salaam.
Kamwendo, G. H. (2006). “No Easy Walk to Linguistic Freedom: A Critique of Language Planning during South Africa’s First Decade of Democracy,” in Nordic Journal of African Studies 15(1): 53–70.
Kaplan, R. and Baldauf, B. (1997). “Language Planning: From Practice to Theory” Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kapoli, I. (1998). “Teacher Control and Language Input in ESL writing” in Mreta, A.Y (Ed.) in Journal of Linguistics and Language in Education, [New Series], vol.4 p.56.
Karl, E. (1999). Language Planning: Theory and Practice. Evaluation of Language Planning Cases Worldwide, France-UNESCO.
Kasozi, A.B.K. (2005). “The Development of a Strategic Plan for Higher Education in Uganda 2001-5, The Interplay of Internal and External Forces in Higher Education Policy Formation in a Southern Country” in Nuffic Conference ‘A Changing Landscape,’ The Hague. 108
Katembo, B. I. (2005). “Kiswahili, the Global Economy and the African American,” in the International Symposium of Kiswahili Language and Globalization, University of Dar es Salaam: Tanzania.
Katzner, K. (2002). The Languages of the World, Routledge Publishers.
Kawachi, K. (2010). “An Overview of the Sociolinguistic Situation of Kupsapiny, A Southern Nilotic Language of Uganda,” in African Study Monographs, 31(3): 127-137.
Kedrebeogo, G. (1997). “Linguistic Diversity and Language Policy: The challenges of Multilingualism in Burkina Faso,” in the Proceedings from the Intergovernmental Conferences on Language Politics in Africa, Harare.
Keith, L. (1995). The World Fact Book. London, New York: Phillip’s
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, (2010). Kenya 2009 Population and Housing Census Highlights; http://www.knbs.or.ke/Census%20Results/KNBS%20Brochure.pdf, retrieved on 10th January, 2011
Kiango, J. (2002). “Nafasi ya Kiswahili Katika Ujenzi wa Jamii Mpya ya Afrika Mashariki,” in Nordic Journal of African Studies, 11(2): 185-197.
Kiango, J. (2005). “Tanzania’s Historical Contribution to Recognition and Promotion of Kiswahili,” Africa and Asia, no 5, 2005, pp 157-166, Göteborg University.
King’ei, K. (2010). Misingi ya Isimujamii. Chuo Kikuu cha Dar es Salaam: Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili.
Kombo, D and Tromp, D. (2006). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction, Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques: 2nd Edition, New Delhi: New Age International (P) Limited Publishers. 109
Ladefoged, P. (1971). The Language in Uganda, Nairobi: Oxford University press.
Legère, K. (2002). The “Languages of Tanzania” Project: Background, Resources, and Perspectives. Africa & Asia: Göteborg Working Papers on Asian and African Languages and Literatures 2:6–12. Göteborg University.
Legère, K. (2002). “Intergovernmental Conference on Language Policies in Africa: Zimbabwe 1998,” UNESCO.
Legère, K. (2006b). “Formal and Informal Development of the Swahili Language; Focus on Tanzania,” In Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. by Olaoba F. Arasanyin and Michael A. Pemberton, 176-184.
Legère, K. (2007). “Vidunda (G38) as an Endangered Language?” In Selected Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. Doris L. Payne and Jaime Peña, 43-54.
Lewis, P. (Ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Sixteenth Edition, (Electronic Version), Dallas: SIL International.
Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Government of Australia.
Languages of Tanzania Project, (2009). Atlasi ya Lugha za Tanzania, University of Dar es Salaam.
Majola, K. (2005). “Language and Education in Uganda: An Encounter with the National Indigenous Language Forum,” (M.A Dissertation), University College of Oslo.
Massamba, D.P.B. (2002). Historia ya Kiswahili: 50 BK hadi 1500 BK, The Jomo Kenyatta foundation.
Mazrui, A. A and Mazrui, A.M. (1995). Swahili State and Society: The Political Economy of an African Language. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers. 110
Mekacha, R.D.K. (2000). Isimujamii: Nadharia na Muktadha wa Kiswahili; Minoo City: Osaka University of Foreign Studies.
Ministry of Education and Culture, (1997). Tanzania National Cultural Policy, Dar es Salaam.
Ministry of Education and Sports, (2001). “Teachers’ Guide to Uganda Primary School Curriculum,” vol. 2, Kyambogo: NCDC.
Ministry of Education and Sports, (2008a). “Revised Education Sector Strategic Plan 2007-2015,” Kampala.
Ministry of Education and Sports, (2008b). “Primary School for Uganda Primary 3,” Kyambogo: NCDC.
Ministry of Education and Sports, (2008c). “Revised Education Sector Strategic Plan 2007-2015.” Kampala
Ministry of Education and Sports, (2008d). “Thematic Curriculum and Local Languages Policy: Achievements and Challenges,” Kampala
Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, (2008). National Bureau of Statistics http://www.nbs.go.tz/TZ_FIGURES/TZ_FIG_2008.pdf, retrieved on 4th December, 2009.
Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, (2006). Uganda National Cultural Policy, http://www.ugandaembassy.com/Uganda%20_National_Culture_Poli cy.pdf, retrieved on 11th June, 2009.
Ministry of State for National Heritage and Culture, (2009). National Policy on Culture and Heritage, http://www.nationalheritage.go.ke/index.php?option=com_docman...p df, retrieved on 28th January, 2011 111
Mkude, D. (2003). “Linguistic Heritage in Tanzania: State of the Art, Needs and Solutions” in the International conference of Endangered Languages, Paris.
Mochiwa, Z. (1998). “Subtractive Multilingualism: An Education Legacy in Tanzania” in Mreta A.Y. (Ed.) Journal of Linguistics and Language in Education, [New Series], vol.4 p.31.
Montgomery, C.A. (1966). “The Morphology of Sebei” (Ph.D Dissertation), Los Angeles: University of California
Moshi, L. (2006). “Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics,” ed. Olaoba F. Arasanyin and Michael A. Pemberton, 166-175. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Mpuga, D. (2003). “The Official Language Issue: A look at the Uganda Experience,” in African Language Research Project, Ocean City: Maryland.
Mtenje, A. (n.d). “Language Policies in the SADC Region, Stock-Taking and Prospects,” University of Malawi Press.
Msanjila,Y.P. (2002). “Dhima ya Kiswahili katika Karne ya 21,” in Kiswahili Vol 65 pp 16 – 23
Msanjila, Y. P. (2003). “Kushuka kwa Hadhi ya Lugha za Jamii Nchini Tanzania,” in Nordic Journal of African Studies 12 (3). 296–309
Msanjila, Y.P. (2009). “Haja ya Kuwa na Sera Tosherevu ya Lugha Tanzania: Uzoefu na Changamoto”, Katika Mulika. 28:
Msanjila, Y. P; Kihore, Y. M and Massamba, D.P.B. (2009). Isimujamii: Sekondari na Vyuo. Chuo Kikuu Cha Dar es Salaam: Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili.
Mufwene, S.S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 112
Mugambi, H. (2008). “Language Choice and Shift in Kenya: a Look at the Changing Roles of English, Kiswahili and Indigenous Languages”. University of Vienna: Austria.
Mukama, R. (1986). “The Viability of the Indigenous Languages in the Uganda Context” in Mawazo 6(23): 49-60
Mukama, R. (1989). “Hali na Hadhi ya Kiswahili Nchini Uganda” in Makala za Mkutano wa Kimataifa wa Usanifishaji wa Istilahi za Kiswahili. University of Dar es Salaam: Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili.
Mukuthuria, M. (2009). “Islam and Development of Kiswahili,” in Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol.2, no.8
Mulokozi, M. (1989). “English Verses Kiswahili in Tanzanian Secondary Schools,” in Dissemination Seminar on the Reading Competence of Secondary School Students in Tanzania: Dar es Salaam
Mulokozi, M. (n.d). “Kiswahili as a National and International Language,” Institute of Kiswahili Research, University of Dar es salaam: Tanzania.
Musoke, D. (Ed.) (1969). Nationalism through Education, Kampala: Milton Obote Foundation.
Muzale, H. and Rugemalira, J (2001). “Languages of Tanzania Project”: Workshop I Final Report: University of Dar es Salaam.
Muzale, H. and Rugemalira, J. (2008). “Researching and Documenting the Languages of Tanzania,” Vol. 2, No. 1.
Muyanda, M. (1996). Analysis of the Primary Education Curriculum in Uganda: including a Framework for Primary Education Curriculum Renewal, Nairobi: Kenya.
Mwananchi, (2009). “Kiswahili Sasa Kimo Kwenye Mtandao wa Microsoft,” Makala ya Maarifa, 9th December, p.3, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Mwananchi Publications Ltd. 113
Mwananchi, (2009). “Lugha ni Kikwazo Kikubwa Kinachochangia Wanafunzi wengi Kutoelewa Masomo,” Makala ya Habari za kitaifa, 19th December, p.5, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Mwananchi Publications Ltd.
Mwansoko, H.J.M. (1990). “The Modernization of Swahili Technical Terminologies: An Investigation of Linguistics and Literature Terminologies,” (Ph.D Dissertation): University of York.
Nabirye, M. (2010). “The Monolingual Lusoga Dictionary Faced with Demands from a New User Category,” Lexicos 20(AFRILEX-reeks/Series 20:2010): 326-350
Namusisi, S. (2000). “An Analysis of the Nature of Code Switching Between English and Luganda in Secondary Schools Environment,” (M.A Thesis), Makerere University.
National Curriculum Development Center, (2006). “The Newsletter of the Thematic Primary Curriculum.” Issue 1. August 2006. Kampala: National Curriculum Development Centre.
Ndoleriire, O. (1996). “Kiswahili as a National Language: Towards Language Homogeneity or Heterogeneity, The Vexing National Language Issues in Uganda” in Makerere Papers in Language and Linguistics, Journal of the Institute of Languages of Makerere University; Vol. 1 No3 1996
Ndoleriire, O. (2005). “Harmonizing Runyakitara Orthography in the Absence of Political Will,” in CASAS Workshop, Kampala.
Nelde, P. (2000). “Prerequisites for a New European Language Policy,” in Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21 (5). 442–450
Neville, A. (n.d). “Language Policy and Planning in the New South Africa,” Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa, University of Cape Town. 114
Noss, R. (1971). “Politics and Language Policy in Southern Asia,” Language Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, No16, pp. 25-32
Nsibambi, A. (1967). “Some Political Problems of Linguistic Communication of Uganda,” in East African Academy College, Makerere University College.
Ogechi, O. N. (2002). “Utegemezi na Utegemeano Baina ya Kenya na Tanzania Katika Ukuzaji wa Kiswahili Nchini Kenya,” AAP 72. in Swahili Forum ix. 155-172
O’Brien, R.J. and W.A. Cuyers (1975). “A descriptive sketch of the grammar of Sebei,” in Working Papers on Languages and Linguistics, 9: 1-94, Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
O’Grady, W., M. Dobrovolsky and F. Katamba (1996).Contemporary Linguistics; An Introduction. Longman Limited.
Prah, K. (2002a). “Going Native: Language of Instruction for Education, Development and African Emancipation,” in Launching Workshop of Language of Instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA), Morogoro.
Prah, K. (2002b). “Language, Neo-colonialism and the Development Challenge,” No. 150, Tricontinental, Havana
Rubanza, Y. I. (2004). “Lugha Kama Njia ya Mawasiliano na Ujumbe: Nafasi ya Lugha za Asili” in Languages of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam
Ricento, T. (Ed.) (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Methods. New York: Blackwell Publisher Ltd.
Richard, R. (1995). “Language Planning Considerations in Indigenous Communities,” in Bilingual Research Journal; vol. 19, No.1, University of Arizona. 115
Republic of Kenya, (2010). The Constitution of Kenya, 2010; http://www.kenyalaw.org/klr/index.php?id=14&L=0: National Council for Law; retrieved on 10th January, 2010
Republic of Uganda, (1995). Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995; http://www.ugandaonlinelawlibrary.com/files/constitution/constitutio n_1995.pdf retrieved on 16th June, 2009.
Republic of Uganda, (2005). “Constitution Amendment Act, 2005” http://www.google.co.tz/search?q=amendiment+act+of+constitution+ of+uganda+pdf&btnG=Search&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql= &oq=; retrieved on 19th October, 2009
Rubagumya, C.M. (1991). “Language Promotion for Education Purposes: The Example of Tanzania,” in International Review of Education, 37 (1): 67-85, Netherlands.
Rubin, J. and Jernudd, B. (Eds.). (1971). Can Language be Planned? Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Rugemalira, J.(2005b). “Theoretical and Practical Challenges in a Tanzanian English Medium Primary School, in Working Papers on Asian and African Languages and Literatures 5, 66–84. Göteborg University.
Senkoro, F.E.M.K. (2005). “Language of Instruction: The Forgotten Factor in Education Quality and Standards in Africa?” in CODESRIA General Assembly. Maputo: Mozambique.
Spolsky, B. (2010). History of Sociolinguistics Part 1: The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics, Sage Publications
Ssebunga, C.M. (2003). “Institutionalization, Perspectives, Challenges, and Pedagogical Dimensions of the English Language in the Education Systems of Former British Colonies in Africa, the Case of Uganda, Kenya, and Zimbabwe,” in Uganda Journal of Education, Vol.4, Kampala: Makerere University. 116
Ssekamwa, J.C. (1971). Readings in the Development of Education in East Africa, Kampala: Makerere University.
Ssekamwa, J.C. and Lugumba, S.M.E, (1973). Educational Developments and Administration in Uganda 1900-1970, Kampala: Longmans.
Ssekamwa, J.C. (1997). History and Development of Education in Uganda, Kampala: Fountain Publishers.
Swilla, N. (2009). “Language of Instruction in Tanzania: Contradictions between Ideology, Policy and Implementation,” in African Study Monograph.
Taasisi ya Taaluma za Kiswahili, (2010). Programu ya Digrii ya M.A (Kiswahili), University of Dar es salaam: Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili
Tiberondwa, A. (1975). “The Teaching Profession in Uganda (1877-1972),” (Ph.D Dissertation), University of Dar es salaam.
Torsten, H. and Neville, T. (1985). The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics, (2010). “Uganda National Census Report, 2010” http://www.ubos.org/?st=pagerelations2&id=16&p=related%20pages 202:2002%20Census%20Results.pdf retrieved on 11th February, 2011.
Uganda National Examination Board, (1998-2003). Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education, Syllabuses and Regulations, Kampala.
United Nations Development Programes, (2005). Human Development Report 2005, http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/understanding/resources.cfm.pdf retrieved on 4th January 2010.
Viera, P. (1996). “Swahili and the Dilemma of Ugandan Language Policy,” in Asian and African Studies, 158-170 117
Viriri, A. (2008). “Language Planning in Zimbabwe: The Conservation and Management of Indigenous Languages as Intangible Heritage,” Zimbabwe.
Walusimbi, L. (1973). “The Language Problem in Uganda,” in Mawazo.4 (1):26-29.
Walusimbi, L. (2004). “Kiswahili a Poor Choice for Uganda” in New Vision 13th December, 2004: Kampala.
Wendo, N. (2009). “Language Policy in Kenya: Negotiation with English Hegemony,” in Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.3, no.1.
Whiteley, W. (1974). (Ed.) Language in Kenya. Nairobi: