Assessment of Language Endangerment in the Kinga Speech Community: Makete District - Tanzania

The University of Dodoma University of Dodoma Institutional Repository http://repository.udom.ac.tz

Humanities Master Dissertations

2018 Assessment of language endangerment in the Kinga speech community: Makete district - Tanzania

Sanga, Edison

The University of Dodoma

Sanga, E. (2018). Assessment of language endangerment in the Kinga speech community: Makete district - Tanzania (Master's dissertation). The University of Dodoma, Dodoma. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12661/889 Downloaded from UDOM Institutional Repository at The University of Dodoma, an open access institutional repository.

ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT IN THE

KINGA SPEECH COMMUNITY: MAKETE DISTRICT -

TANZANIA

EDISON SANGA

MASTER OF ARTS IN LINGUISTICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA

OCTOBER, 2018 1

ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT IN THE KINGA

SPEECH COMMUNITY: MAKETE DISTRICT - TANZANIA

EDISON SANGA

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN

LINGUISTICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA

OCTOBER, 2018

DECLARATION

AND

I Edison Sanga, declare that this dissertation is my own original work and that it has not been presented and will not be presented to any other University for a similar or any other degree award.

Signature…………………………………………………..

No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior or written permission of the author or the University of Dodoma. If transformed for publication in any other format shall be acknowledged that, this work has been submitted for degree award at the University of

Dodoma.

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that she has read and hereby recommends for acceptance by the

University of Dodoma dissertation entitled Assessment of Language Endangerment in the

Kinga Speech Community: Makete District Tanzania in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics of the University of Dodoma.

Signature……………………………………………………..

Dr. Rafiki Yohana Sebonde

(SUPERVISOR)

Date………………………………………………………….

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks to the Almighty God for granting me good health, courage, inspiration and endless day to day blessings. However, there are several people to whom I am indebted for their wholehearted contribution in the successful accomplishment of this dissertation.

To start with, I am forever grateful to my supervisor Dr. Sebonde Rafiki. She has been a tremendous mentor to me by her genuine criticism, advice and constant encouragement during the time of all stages of my work. She has also engaged me in new useful ideas and skills on the art of research. I have really benefited from her great support, without it the completion of this task could not have been possible.

Besides my supervisor, I would also like to extend my gratitude to other lecturers in the department of foreign languages and literature at the College of Humanities and Social

Science in the University of Dodoma from the core of my heart. First and foremost, I would like to thank Prof. V. Lakshmanan, Dr. Biseko, J. M, Dr. Sane, Dr. Chrispina, A,

Dr. Selestino, Dr. Stanslaus, Dr. Magashi and the whole management team of the

University of Dodoma.

Last but certainly not least, I would also like to express my appreciation to my fellow MA

Linguistics students at the University of Dodoma 2016/2018. Their unforgettable cooperation both academically & socially has really provided me with an opportunity to learn many good things and put complex concepts into simple terms, this has made my coursework time to be an enjoyable moment. May the Almighty God bless you!

iii

ABSTRACT

This study was aimed at assessing the trend of endangerment in the Kinga Ethnic language spoken at Makete District in Njombe Region Tanzania. The specific objectives of this study were; to evaluate intergenerational transmission of Kinga, to examine the attitude of

Kinga speakers towards their own language as well as to assess the extent to which Kinga language is used in various domains. The study was guided by Language Vitality and

Endangerment framework by UNESCO (2003) and employed both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. Data were collected through participant observation, interviews and questionnaires from 132 respondents who were selected for the study. The findings of this study were according to UNESCO’s factor number 1, 4 and 8 for assessing language vitality and endangerment.

Basing on the intergeneration transmission as factor number 1, Kinga language falls in grade 4 of unsafe languages, the language is used by some children in all domains; it is used by all children in limited domains. With reference to factor number four about shift in the domains of language use, the language falls in grade 4 of multilingual parity; it is used in most of the domains in combination with Kiswahili. Also, basing on the community members’ attitude towards their own language as factor number 8, Kinga language falls in grade 4 where most of the speech community members support language maintenance.

Lastly, it was recommended that in order to rescue Kinga and other Tanzanian ECLs from shift and endangerment, the following have to be done; these Tanzanian Ethnic

Community Languages have to be promoted and documented, also there should be the creation of new friendly language policies which must emphasize and allow the use of these language in various domains such as in media.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT ...... i CERTIFICATION ...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iii ABSTRACT ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF GRAPHS ...... ix LIST OF MAPS ...... ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xi

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THE STUDY...... 1 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background of the Problem ...... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ...... 3 1.3 Research Objectives ...... 5 1.4 Research Questions ...... 5 1.5 Significance of the study ...... 5 1.6 Scope of the Study ...... 6 1.7 Definition of Terms ...... 6 1.8 Chapter Summary ...... 7

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW .... 8 2.0 Introduction ...... 8 2.1 Theoretical framework ...... 8 2.1.1 Intergenerational Language Transmission ...... 9 2.1.2 Shift in the Domains of Language use ...... 10 2.1.3 Community Members’ Attitude towards their own Language ...... 11 2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 13 2.2.1 Language endangerment ...... 13 2.2.2 Community Members’ Attitude towards their Language ...... 15 2.2.3 Intergenerational Language Transmission ...... 22 2.2.4 Shift in the Domains of Language Use ...... 26

2.2.5 Research Gap ...... 30 2.6 Chapter Summary ...... 31

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 32 3.0 Introduction ...... 32 3.1 Research Design ...... 32 3.2 Pilot Study ...... 32 3.3 Area of the Study ...... 33 3.4 Population of the Study ...... 35 3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size ...... 35 3.6 Data Collection Techniques ...... 38 3.6.1 Participant Observation ...... 38 3.6.2 Interviews ...... 39 3.6.3 Questionnaire ...... 39 3.7 Data Analysis ...... 40 3.8 Research Ethics ...... 41 3.9 Validity and Reliability of Data ...... 41 3.10 Chapter Summary ...... 42

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION & ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ...... 43 4.0 Introduction ...... 43 4.1 Assessing Domains of Language Use in the Kinga Speech Community ...... 43 4.1.1 Home Domain ...... 43 4.1.2 Religious Domain ...... 46 4.1.3 Market Domain ...... 48 4.1.4 Hospital Domain ...... 50 4.1.5 Village Meetings Domain ...... 52 4.1.6 Traditional Functions Domain ...... 53 4.2 Kinga Community Members’ Attitude towards their own Language ...... 55 4.2.1 Language Preference by Kinga Speakers from different Age Groups ...... 56 4.2.2 Language Preference across Gender ...... 58 4.2.3 Language Preference across different Occupations ...... 59 4.2.4 Attitude of Kinga Speakers towards their Ethnic Names ...... 60

4.3 Intergenerational Transmission of Kinga Language ...... 62 4.3.1 Language Acquired before School in different Age Groups ...... 63 4.3.2 Proficiency in Kinga Language from different Age Groups ...... 65 4.3.3 Proficiency in Kinga Language from different Occupations ...... 66 4.3.4 Language Used for Communication with Other Relatives ...... 68 4.4.5 Types of Marriage and the Intergenerational Transmission of Kinga Language ...... 70 4.5 Chapter Summary ...... 73

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 74 5.0 Introduction ...... 74 5.1 Summary ...... 74 5.2 Conclusion ...... 75 5.3 Recommendations ...... 76 5.4 Suggestion for further Studies ...... 77 5.5 Chapter Summary ...... 78 REFERENCES ...... 79 APPENDICES ...... 85

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Intergenerational Language Transmission ...... 10 Table 2: Shift in the Domains of Language Use ...... 11 Table 3: Community Members’ Attitude towards their own Language ...... 12 Table 4: Respondents’ Personal Particulars ...... 36

viii

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 1: Language Used at Home by different Age Groups ...... 44 Graph 2: Language Used in Religious Domain by different Age Groups ...... 46 Graph 3: Language Used in the Market Domain by different Age Groups ...... 49 Graph 4: Language Used in the Hospital Domain by different Age Groups ...... 50 Graph 5: Language Used in Village Meetings Domain by different Age Groups ...... 52 Graph 6: Language Used in Traditional Functions Domain ...... 54 Graph 7: Language Preference by different Age Groups ...... 57 Graph 8: Language Preference across Gender ...... 58 Graph 9: Language Preference by different Occupations ...... 59 Graph 10: Preference for Kinga names in different Age Groups ...... 61 Graph 11: Language Acquired before School in different Age Groups ...... 64 Graph 12: Proficiency in Kinga language from different Age Groups ...... 65 Graph 13: Proficiency levels in Kinga Language from different Occupations ...... 67 Graph 14: Language Used for Communication with other Relatives in different ...... 68 Graph 15: Different Types of Marriages in the Kinga Speech Community ...... 71

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: The Map of Tanzania Showing the Location of Njombe Region ...... 34

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ECLs Ethnic Community Languages

LVE Language Vitality and Endangerment

NGO’s Non Governmental Organizations

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences

UNESCO United Nations Educational Science and Cultural Organization

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THE STUDY

1.0 Introduction

This chapter provides background information to the study at hand. It is divided into six subsections namely; background of the problem, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, scope of the study, definition of terms used and chapter conclusion.

1.1 Background of the Problem

Language diversity is essential to human heritage. Each language embodies unique cultural knowledge, acts as the identification and plays a great role in peoples’ socio-economic development. Language is a tool in which one’s feelings, emotions, ideas and demands are expressed, recognized, implemented and stored for the betterment of an individual and community at large. The extinction of any language is thus a loss of humanity (Harrison,

2007).

Though approximately six thousand languages still exist worldwide, many are under threat.

The speed and reasons for the threat have not been uniform everywhere. This implies that there must be efforts to rescue them such as through documentation and creation of new policy initiatives to enhance language vitality. In so doing, efforts of language communities, language professionals, Non Governmental Organizations thereafter NGO’s and government have to be combined together in encountering this threat (UNESCO,

2003).

Bernard (1992) asserts that a language is considered to be endangered when its speakers cease to use it in various communicative domains as well as passing it across generations.

Any language which is endangered requires some measures to be taken. If there will be no measures a language may finally be out of use completely when it reaches extinction stage.

Language endangerment may also be caused by external factors such as military, economic, religious, and cultural/education subjugation or it may be the result of internal forces such as the community’s negative attitude towards the language. The combination of both internal and external forces affects a language where speakers stop to use it and its culture (Kangas, 2000).

Basically, endangered languages are not necessarily languages with few speakers. Even though small speech communities are vulnerable to external threats, the size of the group does not always matter. Language endangerment may arise when communities with different linguistic traditions and status live side by side. Such contacts involve the exchange of products as well as the exchange of cultural elements including language

(Brenzinger, 1992).

In such context the loss of speakers in one language is the gain of speakers in another language. Many Ethnic Community Languages (hereafter ECLs) are nowadays losing their speakers because of limited intergenerational transmission. This limitation paves the way for language shift when the whole speech community shifts to another language. For instance in Tanzania many ECLs are now on the process of shifting to Kiswahili. This projects a clear picture that there is a danger of these minor languages to be phased out by dominant languages by the end of the 21st century (Bernard, 1996).

Similarly, Batibo (2005:155) made the same observation and claims that the rate of language endangerment in the world has increased following the marginalization of some

ECLs. Some speakers develop negative attitude towards their languages in turn this affects their intergenerational transmission.

The focus of this study was on Kinga language, one of ECLs. The Kinga language falls in group G65 according to Guthrie’s New Online Updated referential classification List of

Bantu languages. It is spoken by the Kinga ethnic group of Southern Tanzania in Njombe

Region, particularly Makete District. Despite the fact that majority of Kinga speakers still have positive attitude towards their language, this does not necessarily imply that Kinga language will always be free from critical endangerment. Critically endangered languages of today such as Latin were once safe languages. This was also cautioned by UNESCO

(2003) that 50% of world’s languages are daily losing their speakers who are considered to be core agents for language vitality. There is a danger that Kinga and other ECLs in

Tanzania will be critically endangered too in the future if there will be no measures taken to rescue them from shift and endangerment.

Moreover, the aim of this study was to assess the level of endangerment in Kinga language as one of the Tanzanian ECLs. Apart from the daily loss of speakers in the ECLs in

Tanzania, there is no any institution for researching or promoting any of them. This was also noted by Muzale (2008) who claimed that ECLs in Tanzania exist in a hostile political environment as several regulations and policies restrict their domains of use. For instance they are not permitted in schools; they are also not commonly used in politics and in the media. This accelerates the demise of Kinga and other Tanzanian ECLs as they are greatly used in combination with Kiswahili in their domains of use.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Language endangerment is a problem currently facing many languages of the world.

Various scholars have done and still doing studies on language endangerment. Batibo

(2005) for instance asserts that recently the degree of endangerment of world’s minority languages had increased. The increase is mostly caused by prestige and dominance of languages of wider communication which are either given the status of being used as

national/official languages or used as lingua franca. This results to the marginalization of minority languages.

Furthermore, Brenzinger (2007:196) claims that Kiswahili threatens more than 130 ECLs of Tanzania. The growing number of speakers who abandon their own language is the first step and indication towards language extinction. When the young generation is not learning the language then it is seriously threatened. As the result of this many people understand these ECLs but they cannot speak them (Batibo, 2005).

In Tanzania ECLs are not generally prohibited, however there is no encouragement from the government to promote them. There is however a cultural policy document by the

Government of Tanzania (1997) which emphasizes that ECLs should be seen as an asset to the government as they are important to Tanzanian heritage, however nothing has been done to implement this. As the result it bears no real credence as they are practically disapproved off (UNESCO, 2013).

Broadly speaking, ECLs in Tanzania, Kinga included are marginalized in the sense that they are not used in the formal domains. They are also not recognized by the state in domains such as public, administration, education, health care or legal services. They are referred to as indigenous, local or vernacular languages and other unpleasant names.

Kiswahili language has spread throughout the country even to the remote areas. It is predominant in all public settings and has marginalized the ECLs of Tanzania which mostly survive in the rural homes (Legere, 2002).

This study has assessed the uses of Kinga language among Kingas in different communicative domains such as in churches, market places, hospitals, homes, traditional wedding ceremonies, rituals, as well as in the streets where Kinga is used in day to day activities. Moreover, the study has assessed the attitude of Kinga speakers towards their

own language and examined the extent to which Kinga is transmitted across generations for the sake of vitality and its unique cultural wisdom. This is also emphasized by Hale

(1995) who argues that whenever a language dies, we lose not only a language itself but also cultural and scientific information of people who used it.

1.3 Research Objectives

Assessing the level of endangerment in Kinga language was the foremost objective of this study. Specifically, the following objectives guided the study;

i. To evaluate the intergenerational transmission of Kinga language.

ii. To examine the attitude of Kinga speakers towards their own language.

iii. To assess the extent to which Kinga language is used in various communicative

domains.

1.4 Research Questions

i. How is Kinga language transmitted from one generation to another?

ii. What is the attitude of the Kinga towards their language?

iii. Is Kinga language still used in various communicative domains?

1.5 Significance of the study

All languages of the world are dynamic and not static in nature. There is a need for continuous research and evaluation as languages change over time. Basing on this fact the study at hand is useful to linguists, government and other Non Governmental

Organizations in determining the rate of endangerment of Tanzanian ECLs including

Kinga. This is instrumental in finding effective ways for documenting and promoting all

ECLs which are at risk. This should be done for the sake of maintaining their vitality and identity in the respective communities; languages also uniquely act as the symbols of group solidarity.

Moreover, the study acts as literature source for linguists interested with further studies on

ECLs in finding out the best ways to extend the range of their usage in various domains like mass media so as to maintain them. This can be done in a number of ways such as by reviewing the Tanzanian Cultural Policy of 1997 which only theoretically emphasizes on the importance of Tanzanian ECLs but practically restrict their uses in various domains such as in public offices, mass media and schools. These are domains which are essential for the vitality of Tanzanian ECLs including Kinga. Last but not least, the study unveils doubts on whether Kinga is endangered or not. This was also emphasized by Petzell (2012) who cautioned on the importance of describing ECLs before their process of endangerment has gone so far. This is not only for the sake of their speakers but also contribute to the field of linguistics as the science hence every described language provides us with a wider knowledge of what grammatical constructions are possible on it and how human linguistic ability functions.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study assessed the level of language endangerment in the Kinga speech community found in Njombe Region at Makete District. Other ethnic community groups which are closely related to Kinga are the Wanji of Ludewa, Nyakyusa of Mbeya, Bena of Njombe and the Ndau of Mozambique. The study was conducted in four villages of Makete District namely; Malembuli, Mang’oto, Sivalache and Usungilo. The district was chosen for the study because it is the origin of Kinga speech community. This ensured the availability of valuable data for the study.

1.7 Definition of Terms

The study has used various terms; the following are their meaning depending on how they have been used.

Language endangerment: Refers to the state of the language that is threatened by extinction where by the threat is due to the decline of speakers of the language or less acceptance in various communicative domains (Batibo, 2005).

Language maintenance: Is the act of continuing to use language regardless of the pressure from the more powerful languages (Mesthrie, 2004).

Language shift: Is the process by which a speech community in a contact situation gradually stops using its language in favor of the other (Maya, 2009).

Language death: Refers to the loss of a language due to the gradual shift from the minority or less prestigious language to the dominant one in language contact situations

(Campbell, 1994).

1.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the background information of the study. It has covered issues on background to the problem, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study, scope of the study, and definition of key terms used in the study. Theoretical framework and literature review for the study will thoroughly be covered in the next chapter.

CHAPTER TWO

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter consists of two main sections namely theoretical framework which guides the study and literature review. The review exposes the gap in literature between the past similar studies and the study at hand. The chapter starts with theoretical framework followed by literature review.

2.1 Theoretical framework

This study was guided by a theory of Language Vitality and Endangerment (thereafter

LVE) by United Nations Educational Science and Cultural Organization (thereafter

UNESCO). The theory was developed by an Ad Hoc Expert Group consisting of linguists from various regions. The theory was also adopted by an International Meeting for

Safeguarding Endangered Languages held at UNESCO’s headquarters in 2003.

LVE is very useful for linguists involved in designing language maintenance and revitalization measures for surveying status of languages. It identifies nine factors to be used in determining the degree of vitality and endangerment of languages to develop measures for their maintenance and revitalization namely;

i. Intergenerational language transmission

ii. Absolute number of speakers

iii. Proportion of speakers within the total population

iv. Shift in the domains of language use

v. Response to new domains and media

vi. Availability of materials for language education and literacy

vii. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies including official

status and use

viii. Community members’ attitude towards their own language

ix. Amount and quality of documentation

Each of these LVE factors is accompanied by a grade scale whereby value ‘5’ is assigned to optimal situation and value ‘0’ to the direst ones. LVE states that no single factor among the mentioned is sufficient to independently assess the state of language or its urgent need for documentation. A combination of these factors enables communities, linguists, educators and administrators to determine the vitality of a given language and its specific vulnerabilities. This is done in order to better prioritize and target safeguarding measures for ethnic community languages hence they are complex and diverse in nature. Though

UNESCO has outlined nine evaluative factors for language endangerment, the researcher has used three of them which relate with the objectives of this study namely;

i. Intergenerational language transmission

ii. Shift in the domains of language use

iii. Community members’ attitude towards their own language

2.1.1 Intergenerational Language Transmission

Fishman (1991) asserts that intergenerational language transmission is the most commonly used factor for evaluating vitality of a language. The researcher has also used this factor in assessing vitality of Kinga language through its six grades as shown in the table below.

Table 1. Intergenerational Language Transmission

Degree of Grade Speaker Population Endangerment safe 5 The language is used by all ages, from children up. unsafe 4 The language is used by some children in all domains; it is used by all children in limited domains. definitively endangered 3 The language is used mostly by the parental generation and up. severely endangered 2 The language is used mostly by the grandparental generation and up. critically endangered 1 The language is used mostly by very few speakers, of great-grandparental generation. extinct 0 There exists no speaker.

Source: UNESCO (2003)

This factor was used in combination with other factors in evaluating the extent in which

Kinga language is transmitted from one generation to another as well as covering changes which may be caused by dynamic nature of language.

2.1.2 Shift in the Domains of Language use

Where a language is used, with whom it is used and the range of topics for which a language is used has direct effects on the vitality of a language (UNESCO, 2003). The factor was also used in assessing various communicative domains of Kinga language use such as at homes or family level, churches, hospital, traditional ceremonies, village meetings as well as in the streets where Kinga is expected to be used in day to day activities. The language which is used in primary communicative domains such as at home has high chances of being transmitted from one generation to another. According to

UNESCO (2003), this factor has also been categorized into six evaluative levels shown in the table below.

Table 2: Shift in the Domains of Language Use

Degree of Grade Domains and Functions Endangerment universal use 5 The language is used in all domains and for all functions multilingual parity 4 Two or more languages may be used in most social domains and for most functions. dwindling domains 3 The language is used in home domains and for many functions, but the dominant language begins to penetrate even home domains. limited or formal 2 The language is used in limited social domains domains and for several functions highly limited domains 1 The language is used only in a very restricted domains and for a very few functions extinct 0 The language is not used in any domain and for any function.

Source: UNESCO (2003)

The study has used this factor in assessing the extent in which Kinga language is used in various communicative domains as previously mentioned.

2.1.3 Community Members’ Attitude towards their own Language

Members of speech community are not supposed to have neutral attitude towards their own language. Negative attitude towards a language acts as a hindrance to the development of any language in particular. On the other hand positive attitude towards a language facilitates development of the language thus rescuing it from the risk of endangerment and finally extinction.

Furthermore, positive attitude by speech community members enables a language to be used as the symbol of group identity. Similarly to that, if members of a speech community viewed their language as a hindrance to economic mobility and integration into mainstream society may be the reason for them to have negative attitude towards their language

(UNESCO, 2003).

In assessing Kinga speech community members’ attitude towards their language, the study has used this factor with its six grades listed in the table as proposed by UNESCO

Table 3: Community Members’ Attitude towards their own Language

Grade Community Members’ Attitudes toward Language 5 All members value their language and wish to see it promoted. 4 Most members support language maintenance. 3 Many members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss. 2 Some members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss. 1 Only a few members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss. 0 No one cares if the language is lost; all prefer to use a dominant language

Source: UNESCO (2003)

The information given in each table above is crucial for assessing a community language because it provides evaluative grades and levels for assessing language endangerment. It also suggests the type of support needed for language maintenance, revitalization and documentation. However, UNESCO argues that the vitality of a language varies widely depending on different situations of speech communities. Therefore, a language cannot be successfully assessed by the above grades and levels randomly. Instead the factors given should be examined according to the purpose of the assessment. Nevertheless, this

theoretical framework has successfully been used by different scholars in their studies such as; Strom (2006) in assessing the situation of the Ndengeleko, Balasubramanian (2007) in the study of the Malama:kku language spoken by the Malama ethnic community, Legere

(2007) in assessing a language spoken by members of Vidunda speech community at

Kilosa in Morogoro, Sarrwatt (2013) in assessing Gorowa language spoken in Babati

District, Mujuni (2015) on the Haya language, Dauda (2016) on his assessment of the

Runyambo language of Karagwe and Pallangyo (2017) in assessing Meru language spoken in Arumeru District. Similarly, the study has used three factors from this theoretical framework which relate with the objectives of the study.

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section provides literature review which covers a number of studies on language endangerment by various researchers. It is divided into the following subsections; language endangerment, shift in the domains of language use, community members towards their own language and intergenerational language transmission.

2.2.1 Language endangerment

Language endangerment is the term that is used to refer to the situation where a language is threatened by extinction. The threat may be caused by decline in number of speakers, limited intergenerational transmission and limited use in various communicative domains where it was previously used. It might also be the results of simplification and erosion of its linguistic structures to the extent that a language became non functional (Batibo, 2005).

Another perspective of language endangerment is from Bobaljik (1996) who regards language endangerment as the situation where a language or languages lose speakers to the extent of lacking speakers within few generations later.

Krauss (1992:7) made a prediction on language endangerment. He asserts that by the beginning of the next century the world will have lost 90% of languages. This means that by year 2100 the world will have only 650 languages out of 6528 languages. However this is just a prediction which may possibly appear to be an extreme or exaggerated scenario.

What matters in this is that it shows that some languages are currently endangered and others are on the way to be endangered. Generally, Krauss’s prediction calls for immediate documentation of these languages which are endangered or likely to be.

As a response to this, linguists have proposed several ways to categorize languages in order to understand their linguistic situations. Batibo (1992) for instance argues that it is more accurate to regard language endangerment as the sliding scale with safe languages at one end and dying languages at the other. In African context most of the minority languages fall under the endangered zone as many of them are having some features of endangered languages.

Likewise, Krauss (1992) uses the term ‘moribund’ to refer to those languages which are not taught to children as their first language. He also points out that these moribund languages will soon cease to be used within a generation. According to him, endangered languages are those languages which are still learned by children but will soon be no longer taught to children within a century.

There is no any speech community which can freely allow its language to die as it facilitates communication in various communicative domains. Also there is no any community which would freely prepare to abandon its language in favor of another. A language is not only a tool for facilitating communication but also a tool for cultural accumulation and transmission as well as a symbol for one’s identity and self expression.

In most cases, speakers from weak position languages will struggle to resist the pressure from stronger languages. The degree of resistance also depends on three factors namely; amount of resistance by the speakers, degree of pressure and relative gain of speakers. The indicators of language endangerment are thus categorized into three main categories as follows; attitude related indicators, use related indicators and language structure related indicators (Batibo, 2005).

Similarly, Batibo (2005) claims that in this kind of resistance the weaker language in most cases fails against the stronger, these results into language shift after abandonment of weak language to stronger one. The abandonment may be voluntary because of some socio- economic gains by members of the weaker language. This kind of voluntary abandonment is also reported by Gal (1979) on the case of immigrant communities in Australia.

2.2.2 Community Members’ Attitude towards their Language

Attitudes developed by speech community members towards their language have been perceived in different ways. For instance, Baker (1992:12) defines attitudes as a feeling, reaction or emotional disposition towards an idea, concept or phenomenon. In correspondence to language, attitudes according to Baker may be negative or positive.

Attitude towards a language matters when speakers of a speech community are in the context of using more than one language. There appears a tendency of developing different attitudes to different languages.

Baker adds that these attitudes in most cases depend on the degree of symbolic or socio economic value manifested by each of these languages whether the attitudes are positive or negative. The role of attitudes in language maintenance has been supported by various scholars such as Adegbija (1998), Batibo (1992), Chebanne and Nthapelelang (2000). This is clearly because of the fact that speakers of a language hold a key to the continuation or

abandonment of their own language, intergenerational transmission and expansion or reduction of language’s communicative domains.

On top of that, Smieja (2003:63) asserts that speakers’ attitude towards a language depends on the prestige of their language. Such prestige results from their perception towards a language. This is also emphasized by UNESCO (2003) that members of the speech community are not supposed to have the neutral attitude towards their language simply because it is of greater importance to them. When members’ attitude towards a language is positive, language functions as a symbol of their identity. Various studies have been conducted on the role of speech community members’ attitude towards their language from different parts of the world as well as Tanzania. The following are some of them;

Heine (1980) assessed the Akie of North central Tanzania in Kilindi District. Their language is known as the Akiek, it is also spoken in other areas such as Kiteto and

Simanjiro Districts of Manyara. The Akie are also known by other alternative names as the

Ndorobo or Mosiro. According to Maguire (1948), about 90 years ago the language was considered to be critically endangered due to the influence from Maasai as the neighboring language but the situation has changed. Up to now the language is still spoken and transmitted across generation. In addition to that it has not lost any domain of its use and the majority of them still want their language to be retained. The survival of the Akiek language is made possible by their positive attitude towards their language. They prevented their ethnic language from the influences and threats from other languages. For instance according to Bakken (2004:150) the Akie used to speak their language as the secret code by avoiding the presence of non Akie members when speaking their Akiek language.

Despite the fact that they have tried to maintain positive attitude towards their language and defend it from threats and influence from other languages, they still face some challenges according to Bakken (2004) especially the names of modern things which were

not present in their community. To overcome this they mostly shift to Maasai and

Kiswahili as their dominant languages. The emphasis of this study was only placed in the language use and ignore other factors such age and intergeneration transmission.

Batibo (2001) conducted a study in the settlements of Manxotae and Nata in Botswana.

The emphasis in both settlements was placed on the Khoesan speakers. The findings of the study show that Khoesan speakers in both areas have positive attitude towards Setswana language which is also the National language and lingua franca in Botswana. The main reason for them to develop positive attitude towards Setswana is its wide communication, uses in media, education as well in various government sectors.

The study went further and showed that Khoesan speakers in those mentioned areas have negative attitude towards their ECLs and traditional names. Instead they prefer Setswana language and names which contribute largely in weakening the intergenerational transmission of their ECLs.

Also, Strom (2006) conducted a study on the situation of Ndengeleko as one of ECLs at

Rufiji in Tanzania. The area where Ndengeleko live is linguistically complex. Other neighboring ethnic communities in the area are Zaramo, Matumbi, Ngindo, Makonde and

Pogoro. According to Strom, Ndengeleko has been influenced by Swahili coastal culture for a long time. Kiswahili has been used side by side with Ndengeleko for at least 100 years (Nurse, 1988). Members of Ndengeleko speech community have different attitude towards their language. According to Batibo (2001) some members of the speech community have negative attitude and others positive towards their language. Some

Ndengeleko speakers with negative attitude towards their language stop using their language when they migrate to urban areas or when they get high status jobs. Others do not regret about the loss of their language because they regard it as the backward language as

well as culture in favor of Kiswahili the national language as noted by Middleton

(1992:45). Generally, the Ndengereko language was noted to have a limited intergeneration transmission because most of the Ndengereko parents do not teach the language to their children due to their negative attitude on it.

Furthermore, Kelechukwu (2006) researched the influence of Nigerian Pidgin English as the dominant language to Ikwere language at Port Harcourt City in Nigeria. The findings of the study unveil that Ikwere speakers who use the Nigerian Pidgin English are considered to be modern, beautiful and hardworking people than those who use Ikwere language. This perception is the result of the negative attitude by members of the Ikwere speech community towards their own language. Parents who were once using Ikwere language are also now days eager of speaking the Nigerian Pidgin English. They also wish their children to speak it so as to have the access to better life in their country. However, the situation is not the same with most of the Ikwere grandparent generation who still have positive attitude towards their language. They consider Ikwere as the language that embodies feelings of honesty, friendliness and generosity. On the other hand, the study shows that there is a big difference in attitude towards Ikwere language across age by members of the speech community; the younger generation for instance shows an overwhelming positive attitude towards the Nigerian Pidgin English at Port Harcourt City.

Generally, this tendency by the members of the Ikwere speech community has largely contributed in weakening their language at Port Harcourt City.

The same trend has been reported by a number of other researchers who have conducted their studies on the African continent such as Adegbija (1994) and Batibo (2005).

According to them most African parents want their children to have proficiency in the former colonial languages in order to improve their chances for social promotion and

economic advancement even at the expense of their ECLs. This is due to the negative attitude by members of these speech communities towards their languages.

Moreover, another study is from Balasubramanian (2007) on the state of language endangerment in Malama:kku ethnic community in India. It reports that even though India is a country with hundreds of ECLs, the linguistic situation in India is still alarming.

Annamalai (2001:56) observes the situation on the basis of comparative studies of 1961 and 1981 census in India. The studies show that half of the population in India has lost their ECLs. Malama:kku speech community members have developed negative attitude towards their language. The study reports that most of them want to be identified as speakers of Malayalam language and not their Malama:kku. Malayalam is a language spoken by the Malaka:rs, it is having features of non native accent. The study also shows that most of the Malama:kku speech community members identify themselves as the speakers of Malayalam language to the outsiders. But covertly they identify themselves as

Malama:kku speakers (Balasubramanian, 2007).

In addition to that, most of Malama:kku speakers do not prefer their traditional names.

Instead they give their sons and daughters two names where by one is referred as

‘malembe:ru’ to mean a name in the hill and the other ‘petipperu’ to mean a name in the plains. This practice of giving two names by Malama:kku speech community members reveals clearly negative attitude developed towards their language. The intention of this is to have access to scheduled ethnic recognition and certificates so as to get various benefits from the government and other organizations. They generally consider their identity to be an impediment to their social recognition and economic development (Balasubramanian,

2007).

Legère (2007) assessed Vidunda ECL at Kilosa Morogoro in Tanzania by using

UNESCO’s LVE three factors. The study reports that most of Vidunda speakers have positive attitude towards their language, however it proves to be endangered. Its endangerment is caused by other factors apart from attitude developed by speakers. One of them is the dominance of Kiswahili over Vidunda following its uses as the medium of instruction in primary schools. In turn this causes pupils in Vidunda speech community to lack competence in their language.

Furthermore, Kim (2008) assessed Thadou language by using the UNESCO’s LVE framework. The language is spoken in India at Myanmar borderland particularly in the states of Manipur, Nagaland and Asam with Ralte, Paito and Zo as its neighboring languages. The study reveals that members of Thadou speech community still have positive attitude towards their language. Also there are organizations and literary bodies which are trying to develop, improve and preserve it from endangerment. In addition to that there are many individuals and groups which are working to revive the lost Thadou script. Community members still consider their language as the mark of distinct identity in a state where there are many ethnic and linguistic groups. However, the study by Kim

(2008) shows that even though there are efforts by different groups, organizations and individuals in Myanmar which are struggling to promote the language. The language is still considered to be endangered mostly because of the influence from dominant languages such as English.

Dauda (2016) conducted a study on the Runyambo ECL spoken at Karagwe District in

Kagera Region by members of the Banyambo speech community by using LVE theoretical framework by UNESCO. The study by Dauda generally assessed the attitude of the

Banyambo towards their ECL; the findings from the study reported that the Banyambo have positive attitude towards their language though sometimes they use it in combination

with other dominant languages such as Kiswahili and English. However, Dauda (2016) adds that the tendency of using Runyambo with other dominant languages is not associated with their attitude but some situations of language use. For instance, they use a combination of Runyambo and other languages when they met with the non Runyambo speakers, change of the context for instance from the local to formal context such as in hospitals or courts and sometimes, the combination is used when they want to create distance between themselves.

Similarly, Pallangyo (2017) used UNESCO’s LVE theoretical framework to assess Meru as one of Tanzanian ECLs spoken at Arumeru District in Arusha region. Her study employed interviews and questionnaire to assess the attitude of Meru speakers towards their own language. The findings of the study by Pallangyo reveal that the majority of

Meru speakers have negative attitude towards their language. Most of Meru speakers with negative attitude towards their language are those with high levels of education or official jobs. They generally consider speaking their language as the sign of backwardness, as a result of this most of them opt for Kiswahili as the dominant language so that they will not be looked down by other people from different ECLs.

Although the study by Pallangyo did not consider age as the crucial factor in assessing attitude developed speech community members, the findings show that the younger generation is the leading group for those with negative attitude towards their language compared to other generations. For instance, they did not regret the loss of their language and culture; rather they accept abandoning it to be their interest. However, the older generation in the Meru speech community still have positive attitude towards their language and wish to see it promoted for their future generation though most of the young

Meru speakers are currently not proud of their language.

To a great extent, the findings from the studies above show that community members’ attitude is a crucial factor which has direct relationship with other factors. For instance it affects the uses of a language in various communicative domains and its intergenerational transmission respectively. However, most of these studies focused only on assessing language attitude in general without considering different parameters such as the age of the respondents. In assessing language attitudes by members of a certain speech community it is important to put age factor into consideration because different age groups have different perceptions towards a language and its uses for instance in the studies by Kelechukwu

(2006) on the influence of Nigerian Pidgin English to Ikwere language at Port Harcourt

City in Nigeria and a study by Mujuni (2015) on the Haya language in Tanzania.

This study has specifically examined the attitude of the Kinga speakers towards their own ethnic language in various angles. For instance it has examined the attitudes of the Kinga speakers towards Kinga ethnic names and how Kingas feel when speaking their language in various domains in their daily life from different age groups in the Kinga speech community. In addition to that, the study assessed the various ways in which Kingas’ attitude towards their own language affects its intergenerational transmission and uses across various communicative domains.

2.2.3 Intergenerational Language Transmission

Vitality of any language depends on the ability of its speakers to pass it from one generation to another. Various scholars concur with this statement, for instance Fishman

(1991; 2001) emphasizes that language maintenance is not possible without intergenerational transmission of it. He means that it is not easy for a language which is not transmitted across generations to be maintained for it will reach a stage when that language will lack speakers.

On the other hand, UNESCO (2003) provides evidence that in order for any language to be free from endangerment and finally extinction, it must be transmitted from one generation to another. This enables it to gain new young speakers who will also transmit the language to the next generation for its vitality. UNESCO’s theoretical framework of LVE has been instrumental in assessing the extent in which languages are transmitted across generations.

The following are studies that have assessed intergenerational transmission on various languages by using UNESCO’s LVE theoretical framework;

Krauss (1992) assessed the language of the Native Americans. The findings of his study suggest the absence of Native Americans who still speak the Hawaiian language except the residents of the isolated Island of Niihau which has the population of approximately 200 people. Krauss added that from those 200 people, 30 of them are children as cited in

Mujuni (2015). According to Krauss (1992), this clearly indicates that there is a low intergenerational transmission of the Hawaiian language for approximately 20 years. This limitation has affected the language which was once considered to be prestigious and strong before taking over of the United States of Amerca in that state.

Stegen (2002) assesses the Rangi language spoken in Kondoa District of Northern Central

Tanzania by members of the Rangi speech community. The language is surrounded by non-Bantu neighbors such as the Burunge, Alagwa, Gorowa, Sandawe, Maasai and

Datoga. The study reveals that the intergenerational transmission of Rangi is currently limited as compared to the past. This is inspite of the fact that for a long time members of

Rangi speech community maintained positive attitude towards their language. For instance in 1970 the Rangi established their first Rangi newspaper. However due to the absence of standard Rangi orthography, most of its articles were written in Kiswahili. Finally the newspaper was discontinued in 1982 due to financial difficulties.

Stegen adds that the lack of standard Rangi orthography have affected its development and allow Kiswahili to interfere in its development. This has made Stegen to conclude that the

Rangi have positive attitude towards their language only at oral level. Now days the younger Rangi generation is eager of learning English for both economic and international communication benefits. In addition to that, the Rangi with best jobs in the government and other sectors prefer their children to learn English. Moreover, Stegen emphasized that there is a need for more researches on the language so as to be sure of its status. This is after he had noted that the shift in positive attitude from Rangi to dominant languages such as Kiswahili and English contributes in minimizing the chances of the language being transmitted successfully to the younger generation (Le, 1997).

Also, a study by Muhammad (2004) on Zarma language spoken at Sokoto state in Nigeria claims that most of Zarma speakers have developed negative attitude towards their language. They have opted for Hausa in turn, a language which they consider to be more prestigious than Zarma. This interferes chances for Zarma to be transmitted to the younger generation as most of Zarma parents do not speak or teach their language to their children, instead they use Hausa. This was also observed by Crystal (1997:362) who concluded that

Zarma language falls under the category of potentially endangered languages. This is the outcome of its limited intergeneration transmission which has been caused by a number of factors such as the negative attitude developed by its speakers and the heavy pressure mostly from Hausa.

Furthermore, Brandley (2005) conducted a study on the Sanie language as one of the

Burnic languages of the Eastern Yi sub group. The findings of the study reveal that out of

18000 people in the area, the language is only spoken by 7000 people. Within the population of 7000 people the fluent speakers of the language in question have more than

60 years of age, the young adults on the other hand were reported to be partly fluent in the

language. This implies that there has been a limited intergeneration transmission. In addition to this, according to Lewis (2009), there are seventy six Sanie villages in the West of Kunming in Yunnan province where the Sanie languages are largely assimilated to Hans language. Speakers are reported to be multilingual in quasi-standard Eastern Yi and

Southern Mandarin languages.

Basing on the observation by Lewis (2009) on the Sanie language, sometimes its intergeneration transmission is done unconsciously with no assurance of the impacts of such behavior. When parents of a certain family in the speech community fail to transmit the language they simply tend to assume that the other families will perform the task instead. Lewis adds that this tendency can commonly be seen in the American, Indian and

Alaska native languages which are threatened due to their limited intergeneration transmission. However, speakers of these languages do not see any tragedy in the loss of their language (Gina, 2007). Basing on the tendency of assumption noted, Reyhner (1990) warned that efforts to save any endangered language must carefully deal with its intergenerational transmission as cited by Mujuni (2015).

On the other hand, Sepulveda (2011) researched the Matukar-Panau language spoken in

Papua New Guinea recognizes a limited intergenerational transmission of it across generations. The limitation is caused by negative attitude that has been developed towards

Matukar-Panau over Tok Pisin which is used in their daily life. Matukar is still spoken by elders over the age of 50 years whereas the language mostly used by other community members is Tok Pisin (Reeves, 2010).

Beck (2011) assessed Totonac language in Mexico and unveils that within the speech community the majority of children are competent in Spanish than their language. This is the clear indication that the language is not successfully transmitted to the younger

generation which will also in turn fail to effectively pass it to their children in a couple of years to come.

Moreover, Sarrwatt (2013) conducted a study on the Gorowa in Babati District by using

LVE theoretical framework. The findings of the study have revealed that the younger generation has stopped using the Gorowa language except the older generation. The younger generation is highly exposed to external communities compared to the older generation. On the other hand, educated people in the Gorowa speech community consider

Kiswahili or English to be the suitable language to them than Gorowa, speaking Gorowa according to them is considered to be a sign of backwardness. So far, this is the reason why they do not transmit their language to the next generation.

The literature review above suggests that intergenerational language transmission is not only affected by attitudes developed by speech community members towards a language but also sometimes it may be affected by language policies. The task of this study was to examine the extent in which Kinga language is transmitted from one generation to another because the language has not yet been researched through the LVE theoretical framework.

Results from the study have shade light on what will be the position of Kinga in a couple of years to come.

2.2.4 Shift in the Domains of Language Use

Language uses in certain communicative domains by members of a speech community depend on the attitude assigned to it. In most cases, negative attitude towards a language forces shift in language uses. Hoffman (1991:186) defines language shift as the situation which exist when a speech community does not maintain its language but gradually adopts another one. The concept is contrary to language maintenance, a situation which exists when speech community members try to keep their language or languages.

According to Baker (1992), attempting language shift only by the means of language planning, language policy and provision of material resources can turn to nothing if language attitudes are not favorable. He also argues that positive attitude can promote a language just like health eating where as negative attitude on the other hand stimulates language shift. It is obvious true that language cannot be separated from our daily life. It is through language the interaction among people in different ethnic groups is smoothly achieved. The following are studies that assess shift in the domains of language use;

Rubanza (1979) investigated the relationship between Kiswahili and Haya language by using the sample of Haya speakers who were living in Dar es salaam. His findings indicate a shift from Haya language to Kiswahili in the domains which were traditionally dominated by Haya language such as home, neighborhood and social ceremonies. Also a tendency of using a combination of Haya with Kiswahili language was recognized among

Haya speakers who live in towns which signify a shift from Haya to Kiswahili in the future. In his study Rubanza had paid much attention to investigate how the level of education, type of occupation, context of language use and language competence influenced language choice in general. However, in this study by (1979) the factor of generations was not paid much attention.

Batibo (1992) on the other hand has assessed the Kwere language in Tanzania, the findings of his study confirmed Kwere ethnic language to be endangered. The study reported that there is a shift from Kwere language to Kiswahili language in most of the domains of

Kwere language. This shift has in turn limited the uses of the language, the language is only restricted to the traditional and ritual domains in the Kwere speech community.

According to Batibo there is confusion to most of the Kwere parents on which language to be taught to the children whether Kiswahili or English as dominant languages.

A study done by Mekacha (1993) on the impact of Kiswahili to ECLs among the Ekinata language spoken in Mara region recognizes language shift from Ekinata language to

Kiswahili. The language was used in few local domains like family and neighborhood mostly by elders. The rest of the domains such as education, administration and others which involve young generation were dominated by Kiswahili.

Msanjila (1999) on the other hand researched the use of Kiswahili and other ECLs in relation to gender in Tanzania along the coastal area. The findings of the study have revealed that gender has no significance differences in language use. But the distance from the town has effects in the choice of the language. For instance the villages which are close to the towns were reported to frequently use Kiswahili language in various domains such as home, market and village meetings compared to ECLs which are used in the villages which are far from the towns. In addition to this, the study predicted the possibility of people in the villages which are close to the towns to abandon their ECLs and shift to

Kiswahili. The findings of the study by Msanjila were crucial to the study at hand due to the fact that the villages where this study was conducted are not far from the town centers.

Also, Igboanus (2002), claims that in Nigeria most of the studies of language endangerment have concentrated on the threats to minority languages caused by dominant languages. Furthermore, shift in the uses of Igbo has been noted by a number of scholars.

One of them is Analechi Chukuezi as cited by Kuju (1999:55) that English language is fast replacing Igbo as the means of communication to the point of extinction. The rest of Igbo according to Igboanus are not bothered. Most of mothers have also abandoned teaching their children the language as they shifted to English and Hausa as the dominant languages.

The shift also affects domains where the language was previously used. For instance some

Igbos prefers the uses of Hausa and Yoruba in their local entertainment than their own language (Igboanus, 2002).

Another study is from Mapunda (2003) on the Ngoni language at three villages of Ruvuma namely; Peramiho, Kilagano and Mhepai. The study has similarly used the LVE theoretical framework by UNESCO in assessing the shift in the domains of language use; the results from the field suggest that Ngoni language is threatened by the shift from Ngoni to

Kiswahili due to the side to side existence with Kiswahili.

Kanu (2005) conducted a study on the influence of languages of colonization to indigenous languages of Sierra Leon. According to him, in Sierra Leon there are about 17 ethnic group languages with Mende, Temne, Limbu, and Krio as the most dominant languages. Study reported that these four dominant languages of Sierra Leon have been introduced in the formal education. A person who speaks one of these languages in Sierra Leon is accorded with high status compared to a person who cannot communicate through them. To avoid this shame the study informs that a lot of people in Sierra Leon are struggling to master these languages. The speakers of other languages in Sierra Leon such as Bom, Bullom,

Dama, Gola, Gallinas and Klao have shifted to these dominant languages due to their perceptions towards them. This was also cautioned by Grenoble & Whaley (1998) that the status of a language is determined by the social and economic opportunities that it offers to its speakers.

Moreover, Mkilima (2016) conducted a study in the Matengo speech community. His study assessed various domains such as market places, in the streets, church and hospital where Kiswahili proves to dominate. The Matengo language only dominates home domain where most of family members maintained its uses although there is a strong penetration of

Kiswahili. This proves that the Matengo language is also at risk as it was cautioned by

Dixon (1998) that the home domain is the stronghold for the ECLs. Mkilima (2016) adds that the traditional function domain in the Matengo speech community was previously dominated by Matengo language only, but currently there is a penetration of Kiswahili in

the domain whereby sometimes a combination of Matengo and Kiswahili is also used in the domain. Generally, the study shows that there is a shift from Matengo to Kiswahili in most of the domains in the Matengo speech community.

To sum up, literature review in this part has suggested that there is a shift from most of the

ECLs in different parts of the world to dominant languages. For instance in Tanzania most of the studies reveal a shift to Kiswahili as the language of wider communication.

2.2.5 Research Gap

Basing on the criteria or factors for identification of the world’s endangered languages which have been proposed by UNESCO (2003), there is a need for frequent researches in order to know if a particular ethnic language is in danger or not because languages loose or gain speakers from day to day. It is possible for a language to be free from danger today but the same language may be in danger in a couple of years later. For instance a study done by Kim (2008) on the Thadou language spoken in India showed that the language was once declared to be a safe language but within a couple of years it was found to be endangered.

Also, literature review shows that inspite of some speech community members to have positive attitude towards their languages still their languages are not categorized to be safe.

For instance a study done by Stegen (2002) on the Rangi as spoken by Rangi speech community shows that most of the Rangi still have positive attitude towards their language but currently their language is not safe. UNESCO (2003) proposed that one of the causes of language shift and language endangerment is the negative attitude developed towards a language. Contrarily, literature review provides evidence of languages which are categorized to be endangered though their speakers still have positive attitude.

Apart from this confusion on language endangerment, in its history Kinga has not yet been assessed. This study has been conducted so as to assess and be sure of the status and development of Kinga as well as inspiring other researchers worldwide to conduct their researches on Kinga language and suggest the best and applicable ways to preserve it.

Additionally, literature review provides various ideas, observations, recommendations and investigations on the issue of language endangerment and language maintenance. The focus of the researcher in this study was to carefully apply LVE factors in assessing the

Kinga language.

2.6 Chapter Summary

The main concern of this chapter was to provide theoretical framework and literature review. It has presented a theoretical framework by UNESCO (2003) and literature review that guides the study. The review in literature has covered language endangerment, intergenerational transmission and shift in the domains of language use. Lastly, it has presented a research gap basing on the difference on what has been done in the past and current study at hand. The chapter to come will therefore present the methodological procedures that were used in attaining the objectives of this study.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the research methodology used in this study. In its presentation, the chapter is comprised of some subsections namely; research design, pilot survey, area of the study, population of the study, sampling technique and size, data collection technique, data analysis, research ethics, validity and reliability of data and the chapter conclusion.

The following is the presentation of subparts mentioned.

3.1 Research Design

Parahoo (1997:142) defines research design as the plan that describes the question of how, when and where data are to be collected and analyzed. This study was conducted through a mixed research design which involved quantitative and qualitative approaches. Brayman

(2001:20) commented on a mixed research design as one that involves the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. This combination has enabled the researcher in this study to manage collection and analysis of data solicited through participatory observation, personal interviews and questionnaires. Each of these approaches was appropriately used to analyze relevant data from the field. For instance data collected through questionnaires were analyzed statistically by the use of charts, graphs and tables. Likewise, data collected through interviews and participant observation was analyzed qualitatively through descriptions. Generally, this research design has facilitated the task of data collection for assessing the endangerment status of Kinga language.

3.2 Pilot Study

The researcher conducted a pilot study before the actual research so as to get acquainted with the area of the study, local research assistants and research tools as emphasized by

Blaxter, Hughes & Tight (1996:121). According to them pilot survey is essential for tryout

of research techniques and methods after the researcher has a clear understanding of the research topic, technique and methods which will be applied and how the research schedule will look like in order to know if there are to be some improvements. This study was conducted in three villages of Makete District namely; Malembuli, Mang’oto and

Usungilo. The survey has employed a combination of participant observation, interviews and questionnaire in a sample of 30 respondents from the selected villages. In each village a total of 10 questionnaires were filled in by the selected respondents. In addition to that in each village the researcher interviewed 5 respondents. This makes a total of 30 questionnaires and 15 interviews. Last but not least the researcher visited various communicative domains of Kinga language in the villages such as at homes, market places, churches and village meetings.

The results obtained from the survey were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively through the application of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (thereafter SPSS) and

Microsoft Excel. The results were quantitatively presented in graphs. On the other hand, qualitative information was presented descriptively. The pilot survey not only equipped the researcher by making improvements on the research tools but also it enabled the researcher to know the right time for conducting the actual research as it was noted that most of the respondents selected in the survey were peasants.

3.3 Area of the Study

The study was carried out in four villages of Makete District in Njombe Region from

November 2017 to February 2018. Njombe is one of the administrative Regions of

Tanzania with five Districts which are Njombe Municipal, Njombe Rural, Ludewa,

Wanging’ombe and Makete. It is bordered by four administrative Regions namely Mbeya in the West, Iringa in the North, Morogoro in the East and Ruvuma in the South (Tanzania

National Website). The following map shows the location of this region.

Map 1: The Map of Tanzania Showing the location of Njombe

Source: Tanzania National Website

Legend

Njombe region

The study was conducted at Makete District despite the fact that Kinga language is spoken in more than one district and region of Southern Tanzania. The choice of

Makete District was based on the fact that; the district is the origin place for members of the Kinga speech community and most of Kinga speakers are born and raised there. This ensured the availability of valuable data for the study as the researcher managed to have access to the domains where Kinga is used freely and naturally.

3.4 Population of the Study

The study involved Kinga speakers of three different age groups namely; the young from ten to twenty years of age, middle aged group from twenty one to thirty five years and old age group from thirty six years of age and above in different socio-economic backgrounds as shown by table 4 so as to get a wider range of required data. From them the researchers focus was primarily on the intergenerational transmission of Kinga language, language used in various domains and their attitude towards the Kinga language. These were the essentials in the assessment of endangerment status of Kinga language as well as in the prediction of its future.

3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size

Sampling relates with the selection of a subset of individuals from within a population to estimate the characteristics of the whole population (Kish, 1965). This study has employed a combination of random and purposive sampling. Stratified random sampling was used in selecting respondents for questionnaires based on gender, marital status, level of education and occupations while purposive sampling was employed in selecting respondents for interviews based on the above mentioned criteria. According to Kothari (2006) purposive or non probability sampling refers to the sampling procedure in which items for the sample are deliberately selected by the researcher. Masuku (2004) defines random sampling as the sampling technique in which each unit or individual included in the sample has a chance of being selected into the sample. The combination enabled the researcher to select respondents who were born and raised in the Kinga speech community who were also ready or flexible to spend their time with the researcher. The sample selected has considered various criteria such as age, gender, marital status, level of education and occupation. The study was conducted in four villages of Makete District namely;

Malembuli, Usungilo, Sivalache and Mang’oto. It has used a sample of 132 respondents

whereby in each village the researcher under assistance from the local research assistants selected a total of 33 respondents. This sample size is quite enough for the study for it is bigger than the sample sizes proposed by Hogg and Tenis (1977) and Saunders (2000).

Table 4: Respondents’ Personal Particulars

Age groups Categories 10-20 21-35 36-55 56-70 71+ Total Gender Male 21 21 18 06 01 67-51% Female 19 15 18 06 07 65-49% Total 40 36 36 12 08 132-100% Marital Single 27 05 00 00 00 32-24% Status Married 13 31 36 12 08 100-76% Total 40 36 36 12 08 132-100% Primary 27 18 20 02 00 67-51% Secondary 13 12 08 02 00 35-27% Level of Certificate 00 00 02 02 00 04-3 % Education Diploma 00 02 02 02 00 06-5% Degree 00 04 02 02 00 08-7% Others 00 00 02 12 08 28-21 % Total 40 36 36 12 08 132-100% Peasants 16 15 09 06 07 53-40% Business- 10 08 11 04 01 34-25% persons Occupations Students 08 00 00 00 00 08-6% Crafts- 04 01 03 00 00 08-6% persons Drivers 02 03 05 00 00 10-8% Teachers 00 04 05 00 00 09-7% Watchmen 01 03 03 01 00 08-6% Nurses 00 01 01 00 00 02-1% Total 40 36 36 12 08 132-100%

Source: Field Data, 2017

With reference to age, the study used five age groups; the first age group (11-21 yrs) consists of 40 (30%) respondents. The second age group (21-35 yrs) had a total of 36

(27%) respondents. The third group (36-55 yrs) contains 36 (27%) respondents as well. On the other hand, the fourth age group (56-70 yrs) has a total of 12 (9%) respondents and the last group (71 years and above) includes 8 (6%) respondents. The second category was gender, on which the study employed 67 (51%) males and 65 (49%) females. The third category was marital status where 32 (24%) respondents reported to be single and 100

(76%) were married. About 73 (73%) of the marriages were confirmed to be endogamous while 27 (27%) were exogamous marriages. The fourth category was based on education;

67 (51%) respondents had primary education level, 35 (27%) respondents had secondary education level, certificate level has a total of 4 respondents which equals to (3%), diploma level has 6 (5%) respondents, about 8 (7%) respondents have bachelor degree level while the rest 28 (21%) respondents have other levels.

Last but not least, occupational categorization was also considered whereby respondent formed a total of 8 main categories namely; peasants were 53 (40%), business-persons were 34 (25%), 8 (6%) respondents were students, similarly 8 (6%) respondents were crafts-persons, drivers were 10 (8%), teachers were 9 (7%), watchmen were 8 (6%) lastly, nurses were 2 (1%). This classification of respondents’ personal particulars was socially stratified with the consideration on inclusion of respondents with different socio-economic attributes like age, gender, marital status, level of education and occupation so as to have different point of views from the sample selected about the uses of language and its future as emphasized by Milroy (1980).

Basically, language acts as the means of social interaction between respondents from different categories shown in the table above. Each category has its preference on the choice of language in different communicative domains. For instance, educational wise

people who are educated in most cases tend to abandon their ECLs and opt for prestigious or dominant languages of wider communication compared to those who are not educated

(Holmes, 2008). Similarly, with the consideration of gender category women are reported to be conservative regarding the uses of their ECLs in comparison with men. Their conservatism in language use is assumed to be the result of a combination of factors such as their fewer movements to urban centers and a feeling that it is their task to transmit their language and cultural values across generations (Dorian, 1981).

3.6 Data Collection Techniques

This study has used the following techniques in data collection; participant observation, personal interviews and questionnaire. The study has put into practice this combination of the mentioned techniques so as to solicit relevant information from the respondents about

Kinga language and its uses.

3.6.1 Participant Observation

Dewalt (2002:7) defines participant observation as the process that enables the researcher to learn about the activities of the people under the study in the natural setting through observing and participating in those activities. The researcher has thus used participant observation in the study by being part of the Kinga speech community. This was purposively done in order to observe the domains of Kinga language use. In order to achieve this, the researcher has attended traditional wedding ceremonies, churches, burial ceremonies, market places, village meetings, ritual and traditional functions as well as visiting some homes so as to assess the language use based on the choices made by both young and adults Kinga speakers when talking to each other. In some gatherings where the participants were ready to be recorded the researcher recorded the conversation in mp3 format for accurate further uses during the analysis as it was cautioned by Sankoff (1998) who emphasizes on the importance of recording during participant observations.

3.6.2 Interviews

The study has also put into use interviews for more clarification of data gathered from respondents through questionnaires. Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2000:267) perceive interview as the data collection technique that allows participants to get involved in the talk with the interviewer about their views, perception and interpretation in regard to the given situation from their point of view. Information collected through this technique was very useful in assessing the attitude of Kinga speakers towards their language, their language selection in various domains and the extent to which their ECL is transmitted across generations. This technique of data collection was not administered to all 132 respondents selected for the study rather to few from each age group whom were purposively selected.

The selection of respondents for this technique was guided by the saturation point. The researcher therefore interviewed a total of 40 respondents at their residences. During the interviews the researcher used a list of guiding questions which were set in accordance to the objectives of the study while jotting down responses from the interviewees. Also for easy retrieval of the information, the researcher recorded the conversations in audio format.

3.6.3 Questionnaire

This is the data collection instrument consisted of a series of questions set in accordance to the research objectives for the purpose of gathering information from the respondents

(Abawi, 2013). The study has employed questionnaires in the task of data collection from all 132 respondents selected for the study. Questionnaires were filled in by competent

Kinga speakers who were born and raised in the Kinga speech community. For instance in case of those respondents who were not capable of reading and writing, the researcher helped them by filling down their responses. In this technique the researcher was also supported by the local research assistants in each village. Respondents for this technique were selected through stratified random sampling. Masuku (2004) perceives stratified

random sampling as the sampling technique in which the entire heterogeneous population is divided into a number of homogeneous groups known as strata. According to Masuku each of the groups is homogeneous within itself and units are sampled at random from each stratum. The sample size of each stratum varies according to the relative importance of each stratum in the population.

Data collected through this technique involved; the attitude of Kinga speakers towards their own language, assessment of Kinga intergenerational transmission and the domains in which the Kinga language is still used. This information was very useful in assessing endangerment status of Kinga language.

3.7 Data Analysis

In this study the researcher organized the process of data analysis through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. For instance data collected through questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively through two software programs namely SPSS and Microsoft

Excel. The results from these software programs were presented in graphs. The programs were used in the study to simplify the task of getting accurate percentages and frequencies for the systematic presentation of data.

Likewise, the data obtained through interviews and participant observation were analyzed through thematic analysis by creation of themes that relate with data about; domains of

Kinga language use, intergeneration transmission of Kinga and the attitude of Kingas towards their ethnic language. The researcher has systematically analyzed the information obtained through various techniques in the study in accordance to the objectives of the study. This has enabled the researcher to assess the level of endangerment in the Kinga language.

3.8 Research Ethics

During the whole period of the fieldwork the researcher observed essential research ethics by having an introductory letter from the University. The letter introduced the researcher and the intention of the research to different administrative levels in the district where the study was conducted. In addition to that, the researcher asked for permission of conducting a fieldwork from the local authorities in the selected area. The confidentiality of the information was also observed, the researcher assured all informants that their information is only intended for research purposes and that whatever is noted or recorded from them will be confidential. Last but not least, individual respondents were also informed about what the study is all about, what will be the benefit of the study. This raised their confidence, flexibility and participation in the study. These have in turn increased their participation thus enabled the researcher to get more information from them.

3.9 Validity and Reliability of Data

The main concern of validity is to determine whether the research truly measures what it was intended to measure and how truthfully the results are (Joppe, 2000). For the assurance of validity of the results the study has exercised the combination of three different techniques as it was cautioned by Crocker and Algina (1986). Their argument was that, when a respondent answers a set of test items the scores obtained represent only a limited sample of behavior. As the result, the response may change due to some characteristics of the respondent and result into assessment errors. These kinds of errors according to them may reduce accuracy and consistence of the results. Hence, Crocer and Algina (1986:106) warned that the researchers have the responsibility of demonstrating validity of their results.

On top of that, Kimberline et al. (2008) define reliability as the consistence of the research results obtained by the use of the same technique. For the reliability of the results the

researcher has employed a detailed pilot study in the villages where the study was conducted. The pilot survey has enabled the researcher to make some improvements in some Kiswahili words which were used in the questionnaire and interviews so that they can easily be understood during the actual research.

3.10 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the methodology used in the study. It has provided information on research design, area and population of the study, sampling techniques and size, data collection and analysis together with validity and reliability of data. Generally, the information shows activities carried out in the field, how they were conducted as well as how data were collected and analyzed in the field. In the next chapter, data presentation and analysis and discussion of the findings will thoroughly be covered.

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION & ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

4.0 Introduction

This chapter covers data presentation, analysis and discussion of the findings on language endangerment in Kinga Speech Community in Makete District and the chapter conclusion.

The study was guided by three objectives which aimed at assessing the use of Kinga language in various domains, examining the attitude of Kinga speech community members towards their language as well as evaluating the extent to which Kinga language is transmitted across generations.

4.1 Assessing Domains of Language Use in the Kinga Speech Community

In all villages where this study was conducted Kinga and Kiswahili were noted to be used.

The researcher has assessed the uses of Kinga in various domains so as to know the extent to which Kinga still holds the ground. This was due to the fact that when two or more languages co-exist in a speech community speakers tend to be selective on the language to be used in different domains. The results of the assessment exposed the trend of Kinga language endangerment at present and predict its future in a couple of years to come. The domains assessed in this study involve; home, religious, market, hospital, village meetings and traditional function domain.

4.1.1 Home Domain

Home is the most crucial domain of language use for the intergenerational transmission of a language. The study has assessed the extent to which Kinga language is used at home across generations. This was done through the use of questionnaires, participant observation and interviews. The following graph shows the uses of Kinga language at home by clearly indicating the percentage in each age group.

Graph 1: Language Used at Home by different Age Groups

35 80%

30 78% 75% 25

15 Kinga 25% 75% 10 20% 22% Kinga and Kiswahili 62% 5 25% 38%

0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017 Regarding language used at home by different age groups, graph 1 shows that; the first age group (10-20 yrs) which consisted of 40 (100%) respondents, only 8 (20%) use Kinga at home while 32 (80%) respondents in the group use a combination of

Kinga and Kiswahili. In the second age group (21-35 yrs) which comprises of 36

(100%) respondents, only 8 respondents (22%) use Kinga at home and 28 (78%) use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. In the third group (36-55 yrs) Kinga is used by 9 (25%) respondents and a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili is used by 27

(75%) respondents. In the fourth group (56-70 yrs) with a total of 12 (100%) respondents, 9 (75%) of them communicate through Kinga while 3 (25%) put into practice a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. Lastly, in the fifth age group (71+ yrs) which has 8 (100%), about 5 (62%) respondents use Kinga while 3 (38%) follow the trend of using a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili which has largely been observed in the previous age groups. The home domain is among of the few domains in which Kinga is still used though to the smallest extent. This is similar to what was reported by Rubanza (1979) that ECLs are retained for family communication and other Traditional function domains where most of the family members are involved.

Generally, the results from the field show that Kiswahili is not used as a separate language at home. Most of Kinga speakers tend to either consciously or unconsciously use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili depending on the context and sometimes to whom someone is talking to. Kinga is no longer the only language used in this domain. The situation has changed even to the older age groups of 50 years and above which were expected to be free from the tendency of using a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. The same trend was also observed by Msanjila (1999) in the Safwa speech community at Ituha village in Mbeya where Safwa was used in combination with Kiswahili in various domains such as home and at the neighborhood domain. Following this trend of using a combination of Kiswahili and Safwa, Msanjila (1999) cautioned that Safwa may at a given time disappear as there will not be middle aged parents to pass on the language to the next generation in order to maintain it.

Similarly, the penetration of Kiswahili language into Kinga’s Home Domain is a threat to the future of Kinga language hence there is an increase of young Kinga speakers who acquire the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language. Similarly, the same trend was observed by Mkilima (2016) on his assessment of Matengo language endangerment in Mbinga District. The study by Mkilima revealed that the tendency of parents to use Kiswahili language at home with their children in the Matengo speech community had weakened their ethnic language. According to Mkilima this was intensified after Kiswahili language was given a higher national status than other minority languages in the country. This is the same to what has happened in Kinga, the trend of using a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili in the Kinga speech community is the result of the promotion that has been invested in Kiswahili over other ethnic languages from the time of independence.

4.1.2 Religious Domain

The graph below shows language use in this domain by Kingas from different age groups.

Graph 2: Language Used in Religious Domain by different Age Groups

30 66% 25 55% 58% 20

15 36% Kinga 27% Kiswahili 10 22% 19% 58% Kinga and Kiswahili 63% 5 7% 25% 3% 17% 25%12% 0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

From the graph above, about 26 (66%) of the first age group use the combination of

Kinga and Kiswahili, Kiswahili is used by 11 (27%) of the group while only 3 (7%) use Kinga in the domain. In the second age group a combination of Kinga and

Kiswahili still dominates the domain, about 22 (55%) of the group claim to use both

Kinga and Kiswahili, Kiswahili is only used by 13 (36%) of the group while 1 (3%) respondent use Kinga. In the third age group 21 (58%) use Kinga and Kiswahili followed by 8 (22%) of those who use Kiswahili while 7 (19%) use Kinga. Similarly, in the fourth group 7 (58%) of the group use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili,

3 (25%) use Kiswahili and 2 (17%) stand for those who use Kinga only. In the last group 5 (63%) use Kinga and Kiswahili, 1 (12%) use Kiswahili while 2 (25%) use

Kinga in the domain. In addition to this classification, the researcher attended three masses at Usungilo, Mang’oto and Malembuli villages. In all churches the

combination of Kinga and Kiswahili appeared to be common in all masses. Kinga words and phrases were only used for making clarifications to the older generations whenever there is a need.

In this domain Kiswahili is used as a separate language inspite of being used in combination with Kinga. This differs from what has been observed in the previous domain.

The language that appears to dominate this domain is the combination of Kinga and

Kiswahili followed by Kiswahili as a separate language and Kinga at the end. This contradicts to what was observed in the Ndengereko speech community by Middleton

(1992). The study on the Ndengereko speech community unveils that most of Ndengereko speakers at the coastal area use Kiswahili as the separate language in the religious domain.

Similarly, the study at hand is also contrary to what was observed by Sarrwatt (2013) on the Gorowa language spoken in Manyara Region. The study by Sarrwatt has revealed that the area where it was conducted was dominated by Christianity and Islamic religions. It was then found that Kiswahili was used in Churches and Mosques while Gorowa language was only used for conversation outside of the religious domains.

However, in the Kinga speech community most of the bibles and hymn books were of

Kiswahili version. The bibles in Kinga language are currently reported to disappear as the language is not commonly used in the domain. In addition to this, researcher interviewed three priests from different churches on language use at the church domain and their general argument was that, they use Kiswahili at church because of the rising number of non Kinga speakers who attend their churches as opposed to the past where only Kinga speakers attended. One priest informed the researcher that despite their use of Kiswahili they understand that some elders are not proficient in Kiswahili that is why they sometimes use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili for the sake of those who face some difficulties

in understanding Kiswahili. Basing on this observation, it is evident that religion is one of the domains that maximize the uses of Kiswahili in the Kinga speech community.

Basically, this is similar to what has been asserted by Mekacha (1993) who pointed religion to be a formal domain that accelerates the use of Kiswahili against ECLs because it is the language that is understood by people from different ethnic groups. Its dominance in the domain forces believers and preachers to struggle to master it so as to be in the position to understand whatever is going on in the church during the masses without difficulties.

4.1.3 Market Domain

The villages where this study was conducted have two categories of local markets. The first is the daily local market attended mostly by villagers only and the second is the monthly local auction which involves both sellers and buyers. The assessment of language use in this domain was made possible by the use of participant observation, interviews and questionnaires. The researcher visited one local market in each village where the study was conducted and interviewed some sellers and buyers. The sellers informed the researcher that they are using both Kinga and Kiswahili so as to attract customers from different ethnic groups. They also added that they are using both languages in order to establish network with Kinga and non Kinga sellers and buyers as the way to ensure the progress of the local business. On the other hand, most of those who use Kinga in the domain are not sellers; they are just customers who are free to choose where to get their services. The following graph displays language used in the domain by different age groups.

Graph 3: Language Used in the Market Domain by different Age Groups

40 90% 35 77% 30 72% 25 20 15 10 67% 17% 14%14% 8% 33% 50% 5 3% 6% 25%25% 0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Kinga Age Groups Kiswahili

Kinga and Kiswahili

Source: Field Data, 2017

With reference to graph 3 above, about 36 (90%) of the first age group use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili in the domain, 3 (8%) use Kiswahili while 1

(3%) use Kinga language. In the second age group 28 (77%) confirmed to use the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili while 6 (17%) stand for those who use

Kiswahili followed by 2 (6%) of those who put Kinga into practice. The same trend prevails in the third age group where 26 (72%) respondents utilize a combination of

Kinga and Kiswahili, about 5 (14%) of the group use Kiswahili while 5 (14%) use

Kinga. In the fourth group 8 (67%) use Kinga and Kiswahili whereas 4 (33%) make the use of Kiswahili in the domain. Lastly, about 4 (50%) of the fifth group is for those who use the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili, 2 (25%) use Kiswahili, 2

(25%) employ Kinga language for their communication at the market places. In all these types of local markets, the mixture of Kinga and Kiswahili was found to be at the leading position in the domain followed by Kiswahili and Kinga at the end.

Generally, this study is contrary to the study done by Mujuni (2015) on the Haya language where Kiswahili was found to be the dominant language in the domain followed by the Haya language. However, it is similar to the observation made by

Mgimba (2014) on the Bena language where the combination of Kiswahili and Bena was reported to be at the top position in this domain.

4.1.4 Hospital Domain

With reference to language use in the hospital domain, Mekacha (1993) commented that in Tanzania the domain is reign over by Kiswahili. It is mostly used in the domain because of its influence as the language of wider communication. It is also understood by patients and health workers from different ethnic groups. This study has assessed language use in the domain; the following graph presents the data.

Graph 4: Language Used in the Hospital Domain by different Age Groups

50% 25 64% 42% 20 50% 42% 15 Kinga 28% Kiswahili 10 58% Kinga and Kiswahili 42% 50% 5 8% 8% 38% 8% 12% 0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

With reference to language use in the hospital domain, graph 4 discloses that about 24

(50%) of respondents in the first age group make use of Kinga and Kiswahili in the domain while 21 (42%) use Kiswahili and 2 (8%) in the group use Kinga. About 10 (28%) respondents from the second age group employ both Kinga and Kiswahili, 23 (64%) use

Kiswahili while 3 (8%) stand for those who use Kinga. In the third age group the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili dominates the domain by 18 (50%) respondents while

Kiswahili is used by 15 (42%) of the group and 3 (8%) use Kinga. Similarly, in the fourth group 7 (58%) respondents use the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili whereas 5 (42%) use Kiswahili only. Lastly, in the older age group the following was observed; 4 (50%) respondents from the group use Kinga and Kiswahili, 3 (38%) use Kiswahili and 1 (12%) is for those who communicate in Kinga.

Generally, it was noted through participant observation that Kinga language or a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili is mostly used in the domain when a Kinga patient is attended by a Kinga health worker. Sometimes the languages are also used when a non

Kinga health worker with interests in learning Kinga is attending a Kinga speaker. For instance one non Tanzanian nurse was observed talking to a patient in Kinga at one of the dispensary at Mang’oto village. It is evident that Kinga is still used in the hospital domain though in a very limited way.

This is contrary to what was cautioned by Gabriel (2013) on Kimbu language. It was reported that speakers of Kimbu have ceased to use it in most of its previous domains except in the traditional function domain. This is not the case with Kinga as it is still used in all domains though in a limited way. However, Mekacha’s comments are absolutely similar to what was observed in this study. In the Kinga speech community the hospital domain is generally dominated by Kiswahili followed by the combination of Kinga and

Kiswahili and Kinga at the end.

4.1.5 Village Meetings Domain

Like in other villages, villagers at Mang’oto, Malembuli, Sivalache and Usungilo sometimes have their village meetings. Those meetings are attended by all villagers without consideration of their ethnic backgrounds. The graph hereunder illustrates language use at village meetings by respondents from different age groups in the

Kinga speech community.

Graph 5: Language Used in Village Meetings Domain by different Age Groups

40 87% 35 81% 30 72% 25 20 Kinga 15 83% Kiswahili 10 17% Kinga and Kiswahili 11% 11% 62% 5 5%8% 8% 17% 38% 0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

Graph 5 indicates that in the first age group about 37 (87%) respondents of the group use the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili, 3 (8%) use Kiswahili and 2 (5%) use

Kinga. Also about 29 (81%) respondents of the second age group utilize both Kinga and Kiswahili, 3 (8%) use Kiswahili and about 4 (11%) respondents use Kinga. In the third age group 26 (72%) use the combination of Kiswahili and Kinga, 4 (11%) respondents use Kiswahili while 6 (17%) put Kinga into practice. In the fourth group

10 (83%) respondents are reported to use Kinga and Kiswahili while 2 (17%) use

Kinga only. In the last age group about 5 (62%) respondents use both Kiswahili and

Kinga and 3 (38%) respondents of the group use Kinga as shown in graph 5 above.

The language that dominates the domain is the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. The combination of the two languages is for the sake of accommodating non Kinga speakers.

Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that all domains of language use are important for the vitality of a language in a speech community. The low percentage of Kinga usage in this domain shows the trend of shift from Kinga to Kiswahili in the area where this study was conducted. This study is contrary to the work done by Stephen (2012) on the Sukuma speech community. In his study Stephen assessed the language used at the village meetings in the Sukuma speech community where it was found that about 81.3% of the Sukuma use

Kiswahili on the meetings rather than their ethnic language.

4.1.6 Traditional Functions Domain

In the Kinga speech community tradition functions are held for various purposes such as giving thanks and seeking protection from different misfortunes from the gods. They are conducted on different areas depending on the purposes as well as selection of those who will attend the function. This study has used participant observation, interviews and questionnaire in assessing language use in the traditional function domain. For instance, the researcher was invited in one of the ancestral worship at Usungilo village which was organized for annual thanks giving to the gods. The function was attended by some members from various urban centers, some of them were young Kingas who were not born and raised in Makete. The graph below presents language use in the domain.

Graph 6: Language Used in Traditional Functions Domain

35 72% 83% 30

25 64%

15 36% Kinga 28% 75% Kinga and Kiswahili 10 17% 75% 5 25% 25% 0 10-21 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

As revealed in graph 6 above, only two languages are used in the domain, Kiswahili is not used as a separate language as it was observed in other domains in the Kinga speech community. From graph 6 about 29 (72%) respondents of the younger age group put Kinga into use in the domain and 11 (28%) use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. Also a total of 30 (83%) respondents in the second age group utilize

Kinga while 6 (17%) use Kinga in combination with Kiswahili. In the third group 23

(64%) use Kinga and 13 (36%) use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. In the fourth age group about 9 (75%) respondents use Kinga for their communication while 3 (25%) use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. Lastly, in the fifth age group a, total of 6 (75%) respondents use kinga while 2 (25%) use both Kinga and

Kiswahili in combination.

However, it is worth noting that the dominance of Kinga in this domain is of a limited contribution to the vitality of Kinga language because of its frequency of occurrence and the fact that it is not attended by all speech community members. Lastly, it is evident that the penetration of Kiswahili in this domain indicates the possibility of shift in the domains of Kinga language use from Kinga to Kiswahili in a couple of years to come, this is due to the fact that at this domain only Kinga language was expected to be used under all circumstances. This is similar to the study by Mgimba (2014) on the Bena language. The results from the study by Mgimba shows that 96.7% of all Bena who attend the function use Bena language while only 3.3% use the combination of Bena and Kiswahili. In this domain of traditional rituals Bena and Kinga are similarly considered to be dominant languages.

The increasing tendency of using the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili which has largely been observed in the domains such as; home, religious, market and village meetings threatens the vitality of Kinga language which falls in grade 4 of multilingual parity in accordance to the classification by UNESCO (2003). In this grade two or more languages may be used in most of the social domains and for most functions. This is what was observed in the assessed domains of Kinga language use as it has been revealed by the study that Kinga is no longer used alone in any domain of its use. Some parents in the

Kinga speech community were noted using the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili than

Kinga itself. This causes most of Kinga speakers in the younger age groups to acquire the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language unlike in the older age group where all members acquired Kinga as their first language.

4.2 Kinga Community Members’ Attitude towards their own Language

Language attitude by members of a speech community towards their own language has a great contribution in determining its future in different ways. For instance if parents

develop negative attitude towards a certain language they will in turn not speak it to their children. Their children will also not use the language; finally the language choices by all will thus cause the language to lose its ground (Lewis, 1980). Contrary to this, a language will be maintained if members of a speech community have positive attitude towards their own language. This is due to the fact that the loss of pride and lack of prestige both due to being ranked at the bottom of language choices have been mostly offered as the explanation for why some speakers have given up their languages. There are highly stigmatized language varieties such as Appalachian English, African-American English which do not seem to be endangered by the prestigious languages which they coexist. This is because of the fact that the speakers of these varieties still consider their languages to be equally prestigious just like other languages (Mufwene, 2003).

This objective was developed so as to assess the level of Kinga language endangerment following the importance of speech community members’ attitude for vitality of any language. In order to make this task possible, participant observation, interviews and questionnaire were used with the intention of knowing whether Kinga speakers are proud of their own language or not. The following is the detailed presentation of data.

4.2.1 Language Preference by Kinga Speakers from different Age Groups

In the Kinga speech community language preference by speakers depends on the individual’s feelings attached to a certain language. In this study respondents were given chances through the questionnaire to expose their language preference so as to unveil their attitude towards their own language. The graph below presents language preference from respondents of different age groups in the selected villages of the Kinga speech community.

Graph 7: Language Preference by different Age Groups

35 80% 30 78% 75% 25 20 15 Kinga 25% 75% 10 20% 22% Kinga and Kiswahili 63% 5 25% 37% 0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

Generally, the first age group (10-20 yrs), second age group (21-35 yrs) and third age group (36-55 yrs) prefer the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili than Kinga but the fourth age group (56-70 yrs) and fifth age group (71+ yrs) prefer Kinga than its combination with Kiswahili as it can be noted from the graph that; about 32 (80%) respondents in the first age group prefer the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili compared to 8 (20%) who use Kinga. In the second age group a total of 28 (78%) respondents prefer using Kinga and Kiswahili while the 8 (22%) respondents use

Kinga. In the third group about 27 (75%) prefer the combination of Kinga and

Kiswahili while 9 (25%) respondents prefer Kinga language. In the fourth age group a total of 9 (75%) respondents of the group use Kinga 3 (25%) respondents prefer the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. In the last age group a total of 5 (63%) respondents use the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili, other 3 (37%) respondents have preference on Kinga. This is contrary to the study by Msanjila (1999) on

Kisafwa as one of ECLs in Tanzania. The study by Msanjila shows that the Kisafwa language was reported to be preferred by all age groups at Ituha village than its combination with Kiswahili. 57

4.2.2 Language Preference across Gender

In the Kinga speech community there is a difference in language preference across gender. It was noted that Kinga women prefer using Kinga in various domain compared to men who prefer to a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili in most cases.

The following graph demonstrates language preference by different gender.

Graph 8: Language Preference across Gender

72% 50 69%

30 28% 31% 20

0 Male Female

Kinga Kinga and Kiswahili

Source: Field Data, 2017

With reference to graph 8 above, about 48 (72%) men prefer using a combination of

Kinga and Kiswahili while only 19 (28%) men prefer Kinga. On the other hand, a total of 45 (69%) women prefer using Kinga and Kiswahili, other 20 (37%) women prefer Kinga. Generally, graph 8 shows that women have preference on the use of

Kinga language than men; this is similar to what was observed by Gal (1979),

Msanjila (1999) and Dorian (1989). For instance a study by Msanjila (1999) on the

Kisafwa language at Ituha village in Mbeya reveals that there is a difference in language preference across gender. About 82% of all women involved in the study were reported to have preference in the use of Kisafwa as compared to 66% of all men who mostly have preference in Kisafwa at various communicative domains. 58

4.2.3 Language Preference across different Occupations

It is believed that educated people do not prefer the use of ECLs. In this study respondents who are considered to be in the group of educated people are students, teachers and nurses. This study assessed language preference from Kingas of different occupations. The graph hereunder illustrates the language preference.

Graph 9: Language Preference by different Occupations

35 58% 30 25 42% 59% 20 41% 15 10 70% 78% Kinga 75% 62% 63% 5 25% 38% 30% 22% 37% 100% Kinga and Kiswahili 0

Occupations

Source: Field Data, 2017

Graph 9 demonstrates that a total of 31 (58%) peasants opt for the combination of

Kinga and Kiswahili while 22 (42%) prefer Kinga. In the group of business persons a total of 14 (41%) prefer Kinga while 20 (59%) prefer to use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. Also about 8 (75%) students were reported to prefer Kinga and

Kiswahili and 2 (25%) had preference for Kinga. Similarly, about 8 (62%) crafts- persons prefer a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili while 3 (38%) single out Kinga for their communication. A total of 3 (30%) drivers prefer Kinga while other 7 (70%) choose a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. Likewise, a total of 2 (22%) teachers prefer Kinga and 9 (78%) of the same group opt for a combination of Kinga and

Kiswahili. On the other hand, all 2 (100%) nurses prefer the

combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. Lastly, a total of 3 (37%) watchmen prefer a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili while 6 (63%) prefer Kinga.

The same trend has been observed in this study, respondents who are considered to be educated were similarly found to prefer a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili than Kinga language. Their preference in the combination is due to the fact that in most of their time they are in contact with non Kinga speakers. Some of them informed the researcher that sometimes they are forced to use the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili after lacking appropriate vocabulary in their conversation. This implies that formal education is one of the threats to ECLs in Tanzania.

4.2.4 Attitude of Kinga Speakers towards their Ethnic Names

The attitude of members of a speech community towards their ethnic names has a direct relationship with their attitude towards their own language in the sense that in most cases these names carry their cultural identity. Ethnic names in the Kinga speech community fall under two major categories, the first being those inherited from grandparents across generations and the second include those names which have special meanings such as events that happened in the family/community or what/how they want their children to be in the future rather than bearing cultural or clan identity as reported by Batibo (2005) who emphasizes that in most cases ethnic names carry cultural identity. The assessment on names was organized along age groups whereby non Kinga names were generally preferred than Kinga ones. The following graph shows preference of Kinga names by respondents from different age groups.

Graph 10: Preference for Kinga names in different Age Groups

35 82% 30 78% 25 64% 20 15 36% Kinga Names 75% 10 18% 22% 88% Non Kinga Names 25% 5 22% 0 10- 20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

As revealed by table 10 above, a total of 33 (82%) respondents in the first age group had preference on non Kinga names while 7 (18%) had preference on Kinga ethnic names. In the second age group the situation was as follow, about 28 (78%) respondents prefer non Kinga names while 8 (22%) preferred Kinga names. On the other hand, a total of 23 (64%) respondents of the third age group had preference on non Kinga names and 13 (36%) respondents in the group preferred Kinga names.

However, in the fourth age group the trend has changed whereby about 9 (75%) opted for Kinga names and 3 (25%) selected non Kinga names. In the last age group, about 7 (88%) respondents preferred Kinga names while 1 (22%) respondent in the group has preference for non Kinga names. Despite the fact that Kinga speakers still have positive attitude towards their own language, on the side of their ethnic names the opposite is the case, the majority of them were reported to prefer non Kinga names.

However, inspite of the fact that the majority of Kingas do not prefer their own ethnic names, it was noticed through interviews that most of Kinga parents still give their children Kinga names after birth before they are baptized or given other non

Kinga names. This is due to the fact that respondents who are Christians informed the researcher that their religious beliefs do not allow children to be baptized with

Kinga ethnic names, they are thus forced to use other non Kinga 61

names. Others reported that giving a child a Kinga name is to risk him or her from inheriting bad manners or traits form the grandparents with those names and lastly the majority of young generation argued that Kinga names do not sound good in comparison with other non Kinga names. Although the majority of Kinga speakers still have positive attitude towards their language, the situation is not the same with their ethnic names.

This contradicts with the study by Mujuni (2015) on the Haya language; in his study

Mujuni used a sample of 79 (100%) Haya parents in determining their attitude towards

Haya ethnic names. A total of 74 (94%) respondents had preference on Haya ethnic names while other 5 (6%) respondents preferred non Haya names. On the other hand, out of 36

(100%) younger Haya who were also involved in the assessment; only 2 (6%) opted for

Haya names and other 4 (11%) young Haya opted for both Haya and non Haya names and

30 (83%) of the group rejected the Haya names. Nevertheless, this study supports the study by Gabriel (2014) on Kimbu language where speakers were reported to have no preference on the Kimbu ethnic names.

Broadly speaking, the attitude demonstrated by members of Kinga speech community categorizes the language in grade 4 according to UNESCO (2003). In this grade most of the members support language maintenance. This complies with what was observed from

Kinga speakers who wish to see their language promoted despite of their preference on the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili in most of their communicative domains.

4.3 Intergenerational Transmission of Kinga Language

Intergenerational language transmission is one of the key factors for determining the vitality of a language. The transmission depends on the presence of competent and proficient speakers who use the language in most of its communicative domains. A language that does not have competent speakers and rarely used for communication has

limited chances of being transmitted across generations (Fishman, 1991). The intention of this objective was to assess the extent in which Kinga language is transmitted across generations so as to know its endangerment at present as well as predicting its status in the future. In fulfilling this task participant observation, interviews and questionnaires were employed. The following is the presentation of data from the field basing on the following subtitles; language acquired before school by different age groups, proficiency in Kinga language from different age groups and occupations, language used for communication with family members and other relatives and the types of marriages and intergenerational transmission of Kinga.

4.3.1 Language Acquired before School in different Age Groups

This part is intended to assess if Kinga speakers still acquire Kinga as their first language before school age. This assessment has involved all age groups so as to be in the best position to evaluate the general trend of intergenerational transmission of Kinga in all age groups. This enabled the future of Kinga language to be projected for its vitality. The task was done through questionnaires which were administered to all 132 (100%) respondents who were selected for the study. The graph below presents data from the field.

Graph 11: Language Acquired before School in different Age Groups

30 72% 25 57% 56% 20 43% 44% 15 100.% 28% Kinga 10 100% Kinga and Kiswahili 5

0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

With reference to the presentation on graph 11 above, about 17 (43%) respondents in the first age group acquired Kinga as their first language and 23 (57%) of the group acquired the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language. In the second age group 16 (44%) respondents had acquired Kinga as their first language and other 20 (56%) respondents acquired both Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language. In the third group a total of 26 (72%) respondents acquired Kinga as their first language on the other side, only 10 (28%) had acquired a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language. Lastly, in the fourth age group, all 12 (100%) respondents acquired Kinga as their first language. Likewise, in the fifth age group a total of 8 (100%) acquired Kinga language before their school age.

Generally, the presentation shows that there is a rapid change on the extent in which

Kinga language is transmitted across generations in the Kinga speech community.

The change was observed from the age group of 36 years and above where the majority of respondents acquired Kinga as their first language before their school age. From the change observed, it can thus be argued that it is possible for the future generations in the Kinga speech community to acquire the combination

of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language because of the trend of acquisition of

Kinga language at present which decreases with the decreasing age groups. The results of this study are contrary to what was observed by Msanjila (1999) in

Kisafwa language at Ituha village in Mbeya. The study by Msanjila revealed that both age groups and gender involved in the study in the Safwa speech community at the village were reported to acquire Kisafwa as their first language than Kiswahili or a combination of Kisafwa and Kiswahili language.

4.3.2 Proficiency in Kinga Language from different Age Groups

The main concern of this subsection is to assess the proficiency of each age group in relation to the importance it has to language vitality of Kinga language as presented below in graph 12.

Graph 12: Proficiency in Kinga language from different Age Groups

40 97% 35 83% 89% 30 25 20 Good 15 100% 10 17% 100% Average 11% 5 3% 0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

Graph 12 indicates that proficiency in Kinga language from the selected respondents falls into two main levels namely; good and average. The majority of them are proficient in the language. The following is the detailed classification of levels; a total of 33 (83%) respondents from the first age group were good in Kinga and the while other 7 (17%) had an average level of proficiency in Kinga. 65

About 32 (89%) respondents of the second age group were good in Kinga while 4 (11%) had an average level of proficiency in Kinga language. In the third age group a total of 35

(97%) respondents from the group confirmed to be good in Kinga while only 1 (3%) claimed to have an average level of proficiency in Kinga. Lastly, in the fourth age group all

12 (100%) respondents had a good level of proficiency in Kinga. Similarly, in the fifth age group all 8 (100%) respondents were good in Kinga.

Nevertheless, from the third to the first age group there is the rising up percentage of respondents with an average level of proficiency in Kinga which increases with the decreasing age groups. It is evident that in the future the number of Kinga speakers who are not proficient in Kinga will raise as these young members who had an average level of proficiency in Kinga became parents.

4.3.3 Proficiency in Kinga Language from different Occupations

This subsection of the objective has used questionnaires and interviews in assessing proficiency levels in Kinga language from different occupations. It was then found that not all members in the groups (occupations) are proficient in their language. For instance most of the teachers claimed that they have an average level of proficiency in Kinga language.

The following graph presents the categorical classification of proficiency levels in the

Kinga speech community.

Graph 13: Proficiency levels in Kinga Language from different Occupations

60 92% 50

40 82% 30

20 90% 75% 10 8% 18% 63% 75% 44%56% 37% 25% 10% 25% 100% 0 Peasants Business Students Crafts Drivers Teachers Watchmen Nurses Occupations Good Average

Source: Field Data, 2017

From the presentation in graph 13 above, about 49 (92%) of all peasants have a good level of proficiency in the Kinga language, other 4 (8%) had an average level of proficiency in their language. In the group of business-persons 28 (82%) of them had a good level of proficiency in Kinga while only 6 (18%) of the group had an average level. Students on their side, the situation was as follow; about 5 (63%) of them had a good proficiency level while 3 (37%) of them reported to have an average level of proficiency. In the group of crafts-person about 6 (75%) of them had a good level of proficiency and 2 (25%) were with an average level of proficiency in Kinga. In the group of drivers about 9 (90%) of them had a good level of proficiency and only 1

(10%) had an average level of proficiency. In the group of teachers about 4 (44%) had a good level of proficiency in Kinga and the rest 5 (56%) with an average level.

A total of 8 (75%) watchmen had a good level of proficiency in Kinga while 2 (25%) of them their proficiency was at an average level. Lastly, in the group of nurses all 2

(100%) confirmed to have a good level of proficiency.

From this presentation, it can be argued that despite the fact that the majority of

Kingas are still proficient in their language this does not mean that their language will always be safe. There is a possibility for it to be unsafe later on due to its limited intergeneration transmission as most of Kinga children acquire a combination of

Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language, this trend is a threat to the future of

Kinga language.

4.3.4 Language Used for Communication with Other Relatives

The purpose of this part is to assess the language used by respondents when they are in conversation with other relatives such as aunts, uncles and grandparents. This will unveil if other mentioned relatives contribute in the intergenerational transmission of

Kinga. The selection of language in this domain in the Kinga speech community depends on the relationship between individuals involved in the conversation and the difference in age between them. The graph below presents data from the field.

Graph 14: Language Used for Communication with other Relatives in different

30 72% 25 58% 56% 20 42% 44% 15 Kinga 28% 83% 10 Kinga and Kiswahili 63% 5 17% 37%

0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

Basing on the presentation by table 14, a total of 23 (58%) respondents in the first age group use Kinga for their communication and other 17 (42%) use both Kinga and

Kiswahili. In the second age group about 20 (56%) respondents in the group use Kinga while 16 (44%) use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. Also in the third group about

16 (72%) respondents from the group use Kinga language, other 10 (28%) use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili. In the fourth age group a total of 10 (83%) respondents use Kinga, other 2 (17%) use both Kinga and Kiswahili. Similarly, in the last age group a total of 5 (63%) respondents of the group use Kinga and 3 (37%) of them use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili for communication with their relatives.

Generally, with reference to the presentation by graph 14, Kinga language dominates the communication between respondents with other relatives such as uncle and aunt rather than communication between family members at home where the combination of Kinga and

Kiswahili dominates. From these data it can thus be argued that with the consideration of percentage over language use, other relatives such as aunts, uncles and grandparents contribute more to the intergeneration transmission than family members. However, this assumption proves to have doubts because most young Kingas stay with their family members for a long time where the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili is dominant compared to the time they spend with other relatives. This trend affects the intergenerational transmission of Kinga language.

Through participant observation, it was additionally found that Kinga language is mostly used by the adults when talking to each other or when they are talking to others who are not of their age. On the other side, a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili is largely used by young Kingas and grandchildren with their grandparents however this pattern was not always the case.

The study at hand is contrary to what Msanjila (1999) reported in the Kisafwa language where the use of Kiswahili increases when communicating with other relatives at the neighborhood from 33% to 46%. Actually, what is happening in Kinga speech community should be taken as a precaution to what Kraus (1992) warned that, a language that lacks intergeneration transmission is as much as endangered language because it is spoken by elders who do not pass it to the next generation. On the other hand, the study at hand supports most of the studies conducted in Tanzania such as studies by Mochiwa (1979),

Ndezi (1979), Rubanza (1979), Batibo (1992), Mekacha (1993) and Msanjila (1999). The mentioned studies reveal that the coexistence between ECLs and Kiswahili in both rural and urban areas is a threat to the future of Tanzanian ECLs and cultural values attached to them.

4.4.5 Types of Marriage and the Intergenerational Transmission of Kinga Language

This subsection was employed in the study so as to be in the position of evaluating the present and future situation regarding the intergenerational transmission of Kinga language. Morris and Jones (2007:484) cautioned that the survival or non survival of ECLs depend on the extent to which a language is passed from one generation to another, if parents fail to ensure their children acquire and use their languages, then such languages are considered to be endangered.

In order to have a clear picture of the situation in the Kinga speech community, the study employed a total of 99 (100%) married respondents with two types of marriages namely endogamous and exogamous. The following graph shows types of marriages in different age groups.

Graph 15: Different Types of Marriages in the Kinga Speech Community

52% 20 58% 18 48% 16 14 42% 12 10 67% Endorgamous marriages 8 58% 88% 42% Exorgamous marriages 6 33% 4 2 12% 0 10-20 yrs 21-35 yrs 36-55 yrs 56-70 yrs 71+ yrs Age Groups

Source: Field Data, 2017

With reference to the presentation in graph 15, a total of 5 (42%) respondents of the first age group had exogamous marriage while 7 (58%) respondents had endogamous marriage. In the second age group about 13 (42%) had exogamous marriage and 18

(58%) endogamous marriage. Similarly, in the third age group a total of 17 (48%) respondents had exogamous marriage while 19 (52%) had endogamous marriage. In the fourth age group about 4 (33%) respondents had exogamous marriage while 8

(67%) had endogamous marriage. Lastly, in the fifth age group 1 (12%) respondent had exogamous marriage and 7 (88%) had endogamous marriage.

Broadly speaking, all age groups in the graph appeared to be reigned over by endogamous marriages, this means that currently Kinga language is still transmitted across generations. The intergeneration transmission of a language depends on the language used by parents at home. However, the low percentage of exogamous marriages in the Kinga speech community should not be taken for granted. With the rapid influx of non Kinga speakers in the Kinga speech community, the percentage of exogamous marriages may rise up and affect the extent to which Kinga is

transmitted across generations as cautioned by Brown (2008). Brown emphasized that exogamous marriages act as an impediment to the transmission of ECLs because in the exogamous marriages couples tend to opt for dominant languages to facilitate communication.

Lastly, according to UNESCOs (2003) guideline for endangered languages the study reveals that; basing on the intergenerational transmission Kinga language falls in grade 4 of unsafe languages, this grade include languages which are used by some children in all domains; they are used by all children in limited domains, on the other hand the Kinga’s community members’ attitude towards their language categorizes their language in grade 4 as most of the members in the Kinga speech community support language maintenance.

Lastly, basing on the shift in the domains of language use, Kinga language falls in grade 4 of multilingual parity where two or more languages may be used in most of the social domains and for most functions. Kinga language is used in combination with Kiswahili as the result Kinga is slowly losing its ground in various domains with the inclusion of home.

This tendency raises the number of young Kingas who acquire and use the combination of the two languages. Also, the majority of Kinga speakers in other age groups prefer the use of the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili than Kinga, thus limit the chances of Kinga to be transmitted across generations. Basically, the general assessment of the three objectives of the study reveals that Kinga language is currently an unsafe language. This is due to the rising number of Kingas who prefer to use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili rather than Kinga. This tendency has caused some Kinga children to acquire a combination of

Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language before their school age. This implies that in some years to come the number of those who use Kinga in various domains will keep decreasing because of the rising number of those who prefer to use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili.

4.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the research findings and discussion of the findings; the findings were presented in accordance to the research objectives as mentioned above.

Specifically, it has assessed Language Endangerment in Kinga Speech Community as one of Tanzanian ECLs. The following chapter will present the summary of the study, conclusion, recommendations, suggestion for further studies and the chapter conclusion.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter provides a general summary of the whole study. It further presents the general conclusion, recommendations, suggestions for further researches and the chapter conclusion.

5.1 Summary

The study has assessed language endangerment in the Kinga language spoken by members of the Kinga speech community of Makete District at Njombe Region in Tanzania. It has used Kinga speakers who were born and raised in the speech community particularly in the four selected villages of Makete namely; Malembuli, Mang’oto, Usungilo and Sivalache.

In order to have a wide range of different perception towards Kinga language and its uses, the study employed a total of 132 respondents who were socially categorized based on age, gender, marital status, level of education and occupation. For instance age wise the study has used five age groups which covered three generations namely the young, middle aged and the older.

This study was guided by three objectives which are generally aimed at assessing the domains of Kinga language use in the Kinga speech community, examining the attitude of the members of the Kinga speech community towards their own language and evaluating its intergenerational transmission. The investigation of these objectives was guided by

UNESCO (2003) language endangerment and vitality theoretical framework particularly factor one, four and eight among the nine proposed factors.

The study has employed participant observation, interviews and questionnaire in the task of data collection from the field. Data collected were analyzed through a combination of

quantitative and qualitative methods. For instance data collected through questionnaire were analyzed by SPSS and MS Excel programs. Thereafter they were presented in graphs.

On the other hand data collected through interviews and participant observation were descriptively presented.

The results from the field show most of communicative domains in the Kinga speech community are dominated by the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili than Kinga. Basing on the UNESCO’s (2003) guidance scheme for language endangerment and vitality, the endangerment status of Kinga language is as follows; firstly, the attitude demonstrated by the members of the Kinga speech community shows that their language falls in grade 4. In this grade most of the members support language maintenance. Most of the Kinga speakers in the selected villages value their language though in most cases they use it in combination with Kiswahili.

Secondly, basing on its intergenerational transmission, Kinga language falls in grade 4 of unsafe languages where most of the members support language maintenance. The Kinga language is still used by all ages in limited domains and transmitted across generations.

However, there is the rising number of young Kinga who acquire the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language.

Lastly, with reference to the trend of its shift Kinga language falls in grade 4 of multilingual parity. In this grade two or more languages may be used in most of social domains and for most functions. Generally, communicative domains in the speech community are largely dominated by a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili language.

5.2 Conclusion

The assessment on Kinga language which has covered the following areas; the use of

Kinga in various communicative domains, community members’ attitude towards their

language and intergenerational transmission has revealed that Kinga language is not safe.

There are threatening trends that has been observed on it. For instance, despite the fact that the majority of Kingas still value their language, practically they do not use it fully. Most of Kinga speakers from all generations prefer to use the combination of Kinga and

Kiswahili. These tendencies should not be taken for granted bearing on mind that the number of those who prefer to use the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili increases. This means that Kinga will slowly be losing its ground in various communicative domains in the speech community as the time goes on following the dominance of Kiswahili over

Kinga in the speech community, influx of non Kinga speakers in the Kinga speech community and the access to formal education which has been maximized by the presence of ward secondary schools in Makete district. This will in turn weaken the intergenerational transmission of Kinga if there will be no measures to rescue the language from the risk of shift and endangerment in the Kinga speech community at large.

5.3 Recommendations

Generally, the findings of this study has revealed that Kinga language is unsafe, basing on these study findings the following recommendations are made to ensure its vitality; speakers of Tanzanian ECLs Kinga included should be told about the real situation of their languages. In addition to this, they should also be encouraged to maintain positive attitude towards their language, use fully their ECLs in various communicative domains than using them in combination with Kiswahili. This should be done purposively so as to enhance their vitality thus saving them from endangerment and loss of cultural importance they have in their speech communities.

Also parents and other adults in the speech communities in Tanzania should make sure that their children communicate in their ECLs. This will help them to be proficient in their languages apart from the strong influence from Kiswahili as the dominant language.

Parents should ensure this so as to enable their children to be able to transmit the language to their next generation at the time when they will be parents. The maintenance of ECLs is not possible without the collaboration of the whole family, both parents and children are crucial in the language maintenance. In addition to this, the government, linguists and other stake holders should document, describe and write orthographies for these ECLs with the inclusion of Kinga. These will help them to maintain their vitality.

Furthermore, studies which have been conducted on Tanzanian ECLs basing on language endangerment, the influence of dominant languages particularly Kiswahili to Tanzanian

ECLs and shift from various Tanzanian ECLs to Kiswahili language should be uploaded on the internet or published. This will enable individuals, linguists and other organizations interested in rescuing these languages from different parts of the word to have access to them as the literature source in their further studies on them or in designing the best measures to be adopted for their vitality. This is due to the fact that most of studies on the above mentioned areas have been conducted in different parts of Tanzania but they have not been published or uploaded on the internet.

5.4 Suggestion for further Studies

Apart from the assessment of Kinga language endangerment by this study, there are other crucial areas on language endangerment which were not covered in this study. In order to be sure of the endangerment status of Kinga language as one of the Tanzanian ECLs, the following recommendations were made;

First, it is recommended that the similar studies should be carried in Kinga language and other Tanzanian ECLs by using other theoretical frameworks such as Expanded Graded

Intergeneration Disruption Scale (EGIDS) by Lewis (2010) and the Graded Intergeneration

Disruption Scale (GIDS) by Fishman (2001). This is very crucial because of the changes

which are happening in languages over time, for instance some languages were once considered to be safe languages but nowadays they are no longer safe.

Second, in order to have a clear picture on the trend of shift in the domains of Kinga language use other studies should be conducted on the shift from Kinga language and other

Tanzanian ECLs to Kiswahili. In addition to this, other studies should also be carried out on how Kinga speech community members and other ethnic communities as well can free their ethnic languages from the shift to Kiswahili and other dominant languages.

5.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter has thoroughly presented the general summary of the study, conclusion, recommendation as well as suggestion for further researches and the chapter conclusion.

The study has revealed that most of the domains of Kinga language use in the Kinga speech community are dominated by the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili rather than

Kinga itself. However, the majority of Kinga speakers still have positive attitude towards their language and wish to see it promoted. This cannot be taken as the guarantee to categorize Kinga language in the group of safe language because of the rising number of

Kinga speakers who prefer to use a combination of Kinga and Kiswahili in various domains. This preference over a combination of mentioned languages affects the intergenerational transmission of Kinga language, for instance 57% of the first age group acquired the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language. Similarly, in the second age group 56% acquired the combination of Kinga and Kiswahili as their first language. A number of suggestions and recommendations were thus made in order to rescue Kinga and other Tanzania ECLs from shift to Kiswahili language which proved to be preferred by most of Tanzania ECLs speakers at large.

REFERENCES

Adegbija, E. (1994). Language Attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Sociolinguistic Overview. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Akira, Y. Y. (1998). Linguists and Endangered Language Communities: Issues and Approaches, studies in Endangered Languages, Paper from International Symposium on Endangered Languages, Tokyo, 18-20 November 1995, 213- 252.

Akpanglo, N. (1998). Language Loss Among Indigenous Ghanaian Languages, Papers in Applied Linguistics. No. 2, pp 333-343.

Austin, P. (2008). Language Description and Documentation. Vol. 1. Endangered Languages Project. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.

Batibo, H.M (2001) The Unlamentable Loss: The Role of attitude in language shift and death In: Karsten Legère (eds.) and Sandra Fitchat Talking Freedom: Language and Democratization in the SADC region, p 42-53. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan.

Batibo, H. (2005). Language Decline and Death in Africa. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.

Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Bernard, S. (1992). Multilingualism in Israel, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 17.

Bernard, H. (1996). Language Preservation and Publishing. Indigenous Literacies in the Americas: Language Planning from the Bottom up, ed. By Nancy H. Hornberger. Pp. 139-156. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bobaljik, J. (1996). Papers on Language Endangerment and Maintenance of Linguistic Diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Brayman, A. (2011). Quantity and Quality in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.

Brenzinger, M. (1992). Language Death: Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences. Pearson Education Company: USA.

Blench, R. (1998). The Status of Language of Central Nigeria, In Brenzinger, M. (Ed.) Endangered Languages in Africa, Rudiger Koppe Verlag, Koln, 187-206.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Richard and Winston: New York.

Brandley, D. (2005). Introduction: Language Policy and Language Endangerment in China. International Journal of Sociology of Language, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1-21.

Cantoni, G. (1997). Stabilizing indigenous languages. Flagstaff, AZ Center for Excellence in Education: Northern Arizona University.

Chebanne, M. (2000). The Sociolinguistic Survey of the Eastern Khoe in the Boteti and Makgadikgadi Pans area of Botswana. In H.M. Batibo & B. Smieja (Eds) Botswana: Future of the Minority Language (pp. 79-94) Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Chambers, J. K. (2002). Patterns of Variation including Change. In Chambers J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. 348-360, Blackwell, Oxford.

Chessa, E. (2001). The Intergenerational Transmission of Catalan in Alghero. Thesis submitted for the Qualification of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), University of London. Queen Mary.

Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Dalby, A. (2002). Language in Danger. London: Penguin.

Dixon, R. M. W. (1998). The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Dopke, S. (1992). One Parent One Language. An Interactional Approach. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam.

Dorian, N. (1998). Western languages ideologies and small language prospects. In Grenoble L. J., & Whaley (Eds), Endangered Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects (pp.3-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dutton, T. (2010). Language Contact and Change in Melanesia, Watter de Gruyter Co: New York.

Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as a Social Practice. Blackwell: Oxford.

Ethnologue: Language of the World. www.ethnologue.com visited on 26th November 2017.

Fasold, R. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.

Feagin, C. (2002). Entering the Community: Fieldwork. In the hand book of Language Variation and Change, Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.) Malden and Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 20-39.

Fishman, J. A. (2001). Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift. Multilingual Matters: UK.

Fishman, J. A. (1965). Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When. La Linguistique. Vol. 2, No. 67-88.

Fishman, J. A. (1972). Language Maintenance and Language Shift as a Field of Inquiry: Revised in Language in Socio-cultural Change, Stanford University Press: Stanford.

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing Language Shift, Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.

Flick, U. (2007). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage: London.

Gabriel, H. (2014). Language Endangerment in Tanzanian Ethnic Community Languages: A case of Kimbu Language. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Dodoma, Dodoma.

Gal, S. (1979). Language Shift; Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gina, C. (2007). Stabilizing Indigenous Language. North Arizona University: USA.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Toronto University Press: Canada.

Gordon, G. (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 15th edition, Dallas, SIL international.

Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (1998). Towards a typology of language endangerment. In L.A Grenoble & L.J Whaley (Eds.) Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response (pp 22-54) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grenoble, L. (2006). Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greenberg, H. (1963). The Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center, Folklore and Linguistics (Publications, 25).

Grimes, B. (2000). The Ethnologue, (Fourteenth edition) SIL International.

Guthrie, M. (1948). The classification of Bantu languages. London: Oxford University Press.

Guthrie, M. (1971). Comparative Bantu. An Introduction to Comparative Linguistics and Prehistory of the Bantu Languages. (Vol. 2), Gregg International, London.

Hale, K. (2001). On Endangered Languages and Safeguarding of Diversity. In K. Hale et al (Eds.), Endangered Languages: Language, 68 (1) pp 1-3.

Harrison, K. D. (2007). When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World’s Languages and Erosion of Human Knowledge. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Heine, B. & Legere, K. (2004). What does it mean to be an endangered language? The state of the Akie, a Tanzania language. In Current Research in African Studies: Papers in Honour of Mwalimu Dr. Eugeniusz Rzewuski, I. Kraska Szlenk & B. Wojtowics (eds.), 107-122. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa

Hickey, T. (2001). Mixing beginners and native speakers in Irish immersion. Who is immersing whom?’ Canadian Modern Review 57 (3), 443-474.

Hockett, C. F. (1950). Age grading and Linguistic Continuity, Language, Vol. 41, 184- 204.

Hoffman, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman Printing Press.

Holmess, S. (2000). A sociolinguistic Survey of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Igboanus, H. (2002). Igbo English in the Nigerian Novels. Ibadan University Press: Enicrownfit.

Kangas, F. (2000). Endangered Language Endangered Knowledge. Multilingual Matters: Clevedon.

Kagwangamalu, N. (2010). Vernacularlization, Globalization and Language Economics in Non-English-Speaking Countries in Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1-23.

Kaul, L. (1984). Methodology of Educational Research. Vikas House Publishing, PVT Ltd: New Delhi.

Kimberline, C. L., & Winterstein, G. A. (2008). Research Fundamentals, Validity and Reliability of Measurement Instrument Used in Research. Florida University Press: Florida.

King, K. (2001). Language revitalization and prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes, Clevedon: UK, Multilingual Matters Press.

Kothari, C. R. (2006). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International Publishers: New Delhi.

Krauss, M. (1992). The World Languages in Crisis. Language. Vol. 68, No 1, (pp 4-10).

Kuncha, M., & Bathula, H. (2004). The Role of Language Shift and Language Maintenance in New Immigrant Community. A Case Study’ Working Paper, No. 1: 1-8.

Kuju, M. (1999). Language endangerment: An appraisal of non-major languages in Northern Nigeria. In Nolue Emananjo, E., & Patrick K. Bleambo (Eds.), 37-57.

Legère, K. (2002). The Language of Tanzania Project: Background resources and perspectives. Africa and Asia 2163-186.

Lewis, J. (2005). Language Wars: The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and Political Violence. London: Pluto Press.

Mekacha, R. D. K. (1993). The Sociolinguistic Impact of Kiswahili on Ethnic Community Language in Tanzania: A Case Study of Ekinata. African Studies, Bayreuth.

Mesthrie, R. et al. (2004). Introducing Sociolinguistics, (Second Edition). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Meyerhof, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics. Rutledge: London.

Mgimba, F. B. (2014). Assessing Kibena (G63) Endangerment Basing on Intergenerational Language Transmission Parameter. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Dodoma, Dodoma.

Mkilima, F. X. (2016). Assessment of Language Endangerment in Tanzania: A Case of Matengo in Mbinga District. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Dodoma, Dodoma.

Mufwene, S. (2001). Paralexification in Language intertwining. Smith and Veenstra, 113- 123.

Muysken, P. (1987). Language contacts and bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold.

Muzale, H. R. T. (2008). Researching and Documenting the Languages of Tanzania. Language Documentation and Conservation, Vol. 2, No. 1, 68-108.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). An introduction to bilingualism, Blackwell Publishing: Malden.

Norris, J. M. (2013). Reconsidering assessment validity and the intersection of measurement and evaluation. Invited plenary address at the annual conference of the East Coast Organization of Language Testers. Washington DC (October 25, 2013).

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, SAGE publication, Newbury Park: New Delhi.

Petzell, M. (2012). The under-described languages of Morogoro. A sociolinguistic survey: South African Journal of African Languages, 32:1, 17-26.

Rajend, M. (2001). Assessing Language Endangerment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rendon, P. (2008). Endangered Languages and Language Documentation. Canada: Toronto University Press.

Roberts, M. L. (1999). Immigrant language maintenance and shift in Gujarat, Dutch and Samoan Communities of Wellington. PhD thesis, Wellington: University of Victoria.

Rubanza, Y. I. (1979). The relationship between Kiswahili and other African Languages, A Case of Kihaya. Unpublished M.A Dissertation. University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam.

Salant, P., & Dillman, A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. John Willey & Sons, Inc.

Smieja, B. (1999). Code-switching and language shift in Botswana. Indication for language change and language death. A progress report. ITL Review of Applied linguistics: 123/124: 125-60.

Strom, E. (2009). The Situation of the Ndengereko, A Coastal Tanzanian Language (P.10), Selected Proceedings of the 38 Annual Conference on African Linguistics. M.A Cascadilla Proceeding Project.

Thomason, S. G. (1988). Language Contact, Creolisation and Genetics Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Trudgill, P. (1991). Language Maintenance and Language Shift: Preservation versus Extinction. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1) pp 61-69

UNESCO. (2003). Language Endangerment and Vitality Methodological Guideline. Review of Application and Feedback.

UNESCO. (2009). UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/culture/inch/index.php?pg=00139.

Visser, H. (2000). Language and cultural empowerment of the Khoesan people: The Naro experience. In Batibo H.M., & B. Smieja (Eds.) Botswana: The Future of the Minority Languages. (pp. 193-215) Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Woodbug, A. C. (2010). What is an Endangered Language? Linguistic Society of Amerca: Washington.

Weinreich, F. (1970). An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Press.

Yoneda, N. (2010). Swahililazation of Ethnic Languages in Tanzania: A Case of Matengo. African Study Monographs, Vol. 3, 139-148

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Questionnaire for Kinga speakers

This questionnaire is intended to collect data about the uses of Kinga language by its speakers, being one of them; you are kindly requested to fill in this questionnaire with correct information depending on your perception towards the language and its uses. Your response will be useful to linguists in their further studies on the language. This study is aimed at assessing the endangerment status of Kinga language. If the language will be found to be endangered your information will be useful to them in selecting proper and applicable ways to rescue the language. You are requested to fill in this form according to the instructions given in each question by putting a tick or by providing answers and reasons for supporting your answers where necessary.

1. Sex: Male...... Female………

2. Occupation……………………………………

3. Marital status: single………married………….

4. Are you married? If you are, specify the kind of your marriage

a) Endogamous……… b) Exogamous………...

5. In which level of education among these are you?

i. Primary school…………… ii. Secondary education……………..

iii. Certificate……………….. iv. Diploma……………….

iv. Diploma…………………. v. Graduate………………..

vi. Others…………………….

6. In which age group do you fall?

11-20…. 21-3..., 31-40...... , 41-50...... , 51-60…, 61-70…, 71 and above……

7. Which language did you acquire before school?

i) Kinga…… ii) Kiswahili……., iii) Kinga and Kiswahili……..

8. Which language are you frequently using with family members?

i) Kinga…... ii) Kiswahili……… iii) Kinga and Kiswahili……..

9. How proficient are you in speaking Kinga language?

i) Very good…….. ii) Good………. iii) Average………….

10. Is there any difference on how the Kinga language is currently used in comparison with the past, for instance is it mixed with other language/s? If yes mention it/them.

......

11. Which language do you use to communicate with other society members such as uncle, aunt and grandparents?

i) Kinga…. ii) Kiswahili…… iii) Kinga and Kiswahili…….

12. Do you prefer to give your child/children Kinga names?

i) Yes…………………… ii) No………………………..

13. If your answer in number 12 above is ‘no’, you are requested to give a reason/s

……………………………………………………………………………………

14. Which language do you prefer to use when you are at home?

i) Kinga………ii) Kiswahili…………...iii) Kinga and Kiswahili…………..

15. Which language do you use when you are in church or mosque?

i) Kinga………ii) Kiswahili…………...iii) Kinga and Kiswahili…………..

16. Which language do you use in when you are at hospital?

i) Kinga…….ii) Kiswahili…………..iii) Kinga and Kiswahili……………..

17. Which language do you use in performing various traditional rituals?

i) Kinga……….ii) Kiswahili………..iii) Kinga and Kiswahili……………

18. Which language do you mostly use at the market?

i) Kinga……….ii) Kiswahili………..iii) Kinga and Kiswahili…………

19. Which language do you use in village meetings and gatherings?

i) Kinga……….ii) Kiswahili………..iii) Kinga and Kiswahili…………

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!

Appendix B Dodoso kwa ajili ya wazungumzaji wa lugha ya Kikinga (Kiswahili

version)

Dodoso hili la tathmini ya maendeleo ya lugha ya Kikinga linalenga kukusanya taarifa za lugha hiyo hasa inavyotumiwa na wazungumzaji wake. Unaombwa kutoa taarifa sahihi kulingana na mtazamo wako zitakazofanikisha utafiti huu. Matokeo ya utafiti huu utasaidia kutoa taarifa kwa wataalam wa lugha kuhusu hali halisi ya lugha hii. Taarifa hizi zitawawezesha kutafuta namna sahihi ya kuiendeleza na kuidumisha lugha hii endapo matokeo ya utafiti huu yataonesha kua lugha hii ipo katika kundi la lugha ambazo hupoteza wazungumzaji wake siku hadi siku, jambo ambalo huweza kusababisha kuathirika au kupotea kwa lugha hii.

Tafadhali, unaombwa kukamilisha dodoso hili Kwa kuweka alama ya vema au kutoa maelezo katika nafasi zilizoachwa wazi kwa kila chaguo kwenye swali husika pale utakapoombwa kufanya hivyo.

1. Jinsia: Ke…………. Me………………

2. Hali ya ndoa: Oa/olewa………………..sijaoa/sijaolewa………………………

3. Kazi/shughuli unayoifanya……………………………...

4. Kama umeoa/olewa, ni aina gani ya ndoa uliyonayo?

a) Mke na mume kabila moja………………………

b) Mke na mume kutoka makabila tofauti…………

5. Una kiwango gani cha elimu?

i) Elimu ya msingi………….. ii) Elimu ya sekondari………

iii) Elimu ya cheti…………… iv) Elimu ya stashahada……..

v) Elimu ya shahada………… vi) Elimu ya watu wazima……

vii) Nyinginezo………………...

6. Tafadhali, umri wako upo katika kundi lipi kati ya haya yafuatayo? Unaombwa

kuweka alama ya vema ( katika sehemu husika.

11-20……, 21-30……, 31-40….., 41-50……., 51-60……, 61-70……,

zaidi………..

7. Ni lugha ipi uliyoanza kuitumia au kujifunza kabla ya kufukia umri wa kwenda shule?

i) Kikinga……., ii) Kiswahili……., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga……….

8. Umahiri/uwezo wako katika kuzungumza lugha ya Kikinga ni upi kati ya?

i) Mzuri sana...... ii) Mzuri………. iii) Wa kawaida……………

9. Je, kuna mabadiliko yoyote katika namna ambavyo lugha ya Kikinga hutumika kwa sasa ukilinganisha na siku za nyuma, kwa mfano lugha ya Kikinga hivi sasa huchanganywa na maneno kutoka lugha nyingine pale inapotumika? Kama jibu ni ndio, lugha hiyo/hizo ni zipi?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

10. Ni lugha gani unayoitumia mara nyingi ukiwa nyumbani kuwasiliana na wanafamilia wako wa karibu kama vile baba/mama, mume/mke, kaka/dada na watoto?

i) Kikinga…..…., ii) Kiswahili…..…., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga…..……

11. Unatumia lugha ipi kati ya hizi zifuatazo kuwasiliana na ndugu wengineo kama vile babu/bibi, mjomba, shangazi, binamu na wengineo?

i) Kikinga…..…., ii) Kiswahili…..…., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga…..……..

12. Unapenda/utapenda kuwapa watoto wako majina yenye asili ya Kikinga?

i) Ndio…………………………. Ii) Hapana………………………………..

13. Kama jibu lako hapo juu (12) ni ‘hapana’, unaombwa kutoa sababu inayosababisha/zinazosababisha kutopenda majina hayo.

………………………………………………………………………………………..

14. Lugha ipi hutumika katika maeneo mbali mbali kama vile kanisani au msikitini?

i)Kikinga…..…., ii) Kiswahili…..…., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga…..……..

15. Katika maeneo kama vile sokoni au mnadani katika eneo lako, ni lugha ipi ambayo hutumika?

i)Kikinga…..…., ii) Kiswahili…..…., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga…..……

16. Unapoenda katika kituo cha afya au hospitali, ni lugha gani ambayo hua unaitumia?

i)Kikinga…..…., ii) Kiswahili…..…., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga…..…….

17. Katika mikutano ya kijiji au mtaa kwenye eneo lako, ni lugha ipi hutumika?

i)Kikinga…..…., ii) Kiswahili…..…., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga…..……..

18. Ni lugha ipi unayoitumia /tumika katika shughuli za kimila kama vile matambiko na nyinginezo?

i)Kikinga…..…., ii) Kiswahili…..…., iii) Kiswahili na Kikinga…..…….

NASHUKURU KWA USHIRIKIANO WAKO!

Appendix C: Interview guiding questions

The following is a list of questions which were used to guide the researcher’s interviews in all selected villages.

Preliminary information for each participant

. Age……………………………………….

. Occupation………………………………..

. Educational level………………………...

1. How proficient are you in Kinga language? (Very good, good, average?)

2. Do you find any difference on Kinga language use as compared to the past, for instance

is it mixed with other language/s? If yes what are those language/languages?

3. Which language do you like your children to use when they are at home? Why?

4. Do you think that it is necessary to teach your children Kinga language? Why?

5. Do you like to give your children Kinga names? Why?

6. Do you think that your children feel proud of speaking Kinga language in your society?

Why?

7. Do you think that the Kinga language is still effectively used in various communicative

domains as compared to the past?

8. Do you think or find any genuine reason for Kinga language to continue to be used in

various traditional related affairs?

9. Do you think that the Kinga is still having a big number of speakers in your society

currently as compared to the past? Why?

10. According to your point of view, what will be the state or condition of Kinga

language in a couple of years to come?

Appendix D: Maswali ya kuongoza mahojiano na wazungumzaji wa lugha ya Kikinga

(Kiswahili version)

Yafuatayo ni maswali yatakayotumiwa na mtafiti katika kuongoza na kuchochea mahojiano kati yake na wazungumzaji wa lugha ya Kikinga katika vijiji vyote ambavyo utafiti huu utafanyika.

Taarifa za awali kwa kila mshiriki

. Umri wa mhojiwa……………………………………………………………..

. Kazi/shughuli………………………………………………………………….

. Kiwango cha elimu…………………………………………………………….

1. Uwezo wako katika kuongea lugha hii ya Kikinga ni upi kati ya (mzuri sana, mzuri, wa

kawaida na si mzuri?)

2. Je, unaionaje lugha hii ya Kikinga katika matumizi yake kuchanganya na lugha

nyinginezo? Kama ndio ni lugha zipi hizo?

3. Ni lugha ipi unayopenda watoto wako waitumie wanapokua nyumbani? Ni kwa nini

unapenda/mnapenda lugha hiyo?

4. Unafikili/mnafikili kua bado kuna umuhimu wa kuwafundisha watoto wako/wenu lugha

hii ya Kikinga? Je ni kwa nini?

5. Unapenda/mnapenda kuwapa watoto wako/wenu majina yenye asili ya Kikinga? Ni

kwa nini?

6. Unafikili/mnafikili kua watoto wenu wanajisikia fahari kuzungumza lugha ya Kikinga

katika jamii yako/yenu? Ni kwa nini?

7. Unafikili/mnafikili kua lugha ya Kikinga bado hutumika sana katika maeneo mbali

mbali kama zamani? Ni kwa nini?

8. Je, unaona/mnaona umuhimu wowote kwa lugha ya Kikinga kuendelea kutumika katika

shughuli za kimila? Kwa nini?

9. Unafikili/mnafikili kua lugha hii ya Kikinga bado ina idadi kubwa ya wazungumzaji

wanaoweza kuizungumza kwa ufasaha kama zamani? Kwa nini?

10. Kwa mtazamo wako/wenu mnafikili kua lugha ya Kikinga itakua na hali gani

(kupoteza au kuongeza wazungumzaji wake) katika miaka kadhaa ijayo? Kwa nini?

Appendix E: Participant observation guide

The aim of this technique of data collection was to confirm some situations of language use as explained by respondents in the field so as to be able to judge the status of Kinga language.

The observation has generally covered the following areas;

1. The language used in various Kinga communicative domains such as; home,

village meetings, church and traditional wedding & burial ceremonies.

2. The language used for greetings by young Kingas between themselves.

3. The language used by the young Kingas when talking to the adult Kinga

speakers in various domains.