Content uploaded by Merit Kabugo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Merit Kabugo on Jan 22, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mawazo, Volume 14, No. 2, (Dec 2020), pp. 34-59
Kiswahili in Contact and Conict: The Case of
Namanga Border Town in East Africa1
Patrick Lugwiri Okombo,* Florence Bayiga,** & Merit Kabugo***
Abstract
Language conflict is commonly studied and understood as an outcome of
contact between speakers of different languages. In this article, we explore
language conflict in the conversations of speakers of a sole language –
Kiswahili. We argue that language conflict can as well occur among speakers of
the same language. Using sociolinguistic data collected ethnographically among
ordinary speakers of Kiswahili at the Namanga border town in East Africa, we
show that these conflicts arise as a result of issues such as (i) citizen mobility,
(ii) existence of several varieties and labels, (iii) varying attitudes of people
towards different varieties, and (iv) demonstrating linguistic power.
Consequently, we demonstrate that contrary to the assumptions of many
scholars of Kiswahili and others, the Namanga border town bares a perfect
example of a space in East Africa where meaningful and informative studies
relating to different sociolinguistic aspects of Kiswahili, such as contact and
conflict can be undertaken.
Key words: Kiswahili, language contact, language conflict, Namanga, East
Africa.
1 The research reported in this article comes from Patrick Lugwiri Okombo’s CHUSS-Gerda-Henkel Foundation
funded PhD fellowships. Consequently, we express our profound gratitude to CHUSS and Gerda-Henkel
Foundation for the fellowships that made the principal researcher’s PhD project and this article possible.
*
Patrick Lugwiri Okombo holds an MA in Kiswahili Studies from the University of Nairobi. He is currently a full-
time PhD candidate of Linguistics at Makerere University. His current research interest in the Kiswahili
sociolinguistics is the understanding of Kiswahili as a lived practice in the socially multilingual settings that
characterize the East African urban settings. He is interested in the ordinary citizens’ understanding and use of
Kiswahili in their social life. His theoretical and methodological frames cut across various sub-disciplines such as
contact linguistics, linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics, and the recent citizen sociolinguistics. The
central thesis of his research is in line with the argument that, because language is a social act, its social value should
be best evaluated in the typical social contexts where it is used.
**
Merit Kabugo is a lecturer and Head of the Department of Linguistics, English Language Studies and
Communication Skills at Makerere University. He specializes in forensic linguistics, translation and discourse
analysis. His research interests focus on the interaction between language and the solving of real-life problems,
especially with regard to rural livelihoods.
***
2 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
Florence Tendo Bayiga holds a PhD from the Department of General Linguistics, Stellenbosch University. She
is currently a lecturer in the Department of Linguistics, English Language and Communication Skills at Makerere
University. She teaches subjects on meaning and language use, namely semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis and
translation. Her research interests are in ‘multilingualism’ and ‘super-diversity’ where she interrogates language
repertoires of people living and working in multilingual environments; how they explore and manipulate the
linguistic landscape in which they find themselves in order to realize meaning in their communicative transactions
while they practice their intricate identities.
34
Introduction
One of the fundamental issues
involved in language contact studies is
language conflict. Consequently,
language conflict has been recognized
as a common occurrence in language
contact situations involving speakers
of not only different languages but
also different varieties of the same
language. The case of different
varieties of the same language
manifest simply as misunderstandings,
tensions, and frustrations in face-
toface conversations.
The aim of this article is to explore
the contact and conflict situations
involving speakers of Kiswahili at the
Namanga border town (hereinafter,
Namanga) – an East African town
located on the Kenya-Tanzania
border. Namanga is a border town
that houses one of the busiest
customs offices in East Africa. It,
therefore, experiences high mobility
of different kinds of citizens
1
who use
it as an entry and exit route into and
out of Kenya and Tanzania. The town
also experiences high convergence of
1
The theoretical model which we invoke in this article
uses the term ‘citizen’ in a specialized way to refer to
people, both natives and non-natives
who move into the town in search of
livelihoods and leisure.
The high mobility and convergence
of citizens of diverse backgrounds at
Namanga brings about a socially
multilingual setting in which several
languages and language varieties come
into contact, requiring the use of a
common language for
communication.
The talk of a common language for
communication in East Africa has
been popular for quite some time now
because East Africa has been
recognized as a highly multiethnic and
multilingual region in which many
languages are spoken (Habwe 2009;
Mwaniki 2010). Among these
languages, Kiswahili has been
reported to be the most widely spoken
and one that functions as a lingua
franca among the many
ethnolinguistic communities that exist
in the region (Mazrui & Mazrui 1993,
1995; Merritt & Abdulaziz 1985;
Moshi 2006; Mukuthuria 2006, 2009;
Mulokozi 2002).
ordinary people who stay in a particular place and
participate in social activities in such a place.
Kiswahili in Contact and Conflict: The Case of Namanga Border Town in East Africa 3
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
Kiswahili is widely used in East
Africa and has a long history in
Tanzania and Kenya as the language
of national identity (Merritt &
Abdulaziz 1985; Lodhi 1993;
Nyongani 1995; Petzell 2012;
Vilhanova 1996). It is almost a
foregone conclusion by many scholars
of Kiswahili that the ordinary citizens
at Namanga would effortlessly, and
without any form of ‘conflict’ use
Kiswahili as a common language of
communication when they come into
contact with each other.
However, as Peter Nelde (1987)
has argued, no two languages or
language varieties come into contact
without any form of conflict. Nelde
summarizes this argument in the
popular phrase that “there can be no
language contact without language
conflict” and that “language contact
means language conflict.” There exists
a number of works that demonstrate
contact between Kiswahili and other
languages, notably English, and some
Bantu languages (see Akidah 2013;
Bosha 1993; Dzahene-Quarshie 2010;
Gowers 1952). However, there is lack
of significant literature regarding
conflict within Kiswahili.
Methodology
The data presented in this article is
part of a sociolinguistic study
conducted at Namanga about the use
of Kiswahili as a tool for social
integration in the East African
Community. The data was collected
ethnographically within a period of six
consecutive months beginning
February 2019. Individual interviews
and observations were the main
methods employed in the course of
the study.
We received ethical approval from
the Makerere University School of
Social Sciences Research Ethics
Committee. The first phase of data
collection involved carrying out
observations in market places,
religious gatherings, bus parks and
customs areas, and football screening
halls. We selected these areas after
examining the multilingual social
nature of the participants. Thus,
research in the markets targeted the
buyers and sellers while the research
in religious gatherings targeted
religious adherents.
The research in the bus parks and
around the customs area targeted the
road travellers, and in football
screening halls the research targeted
the football fans. As part of the
observations, the researchers also
engaged in incidental casual talk with
different people targeting specific
aspects of the use of Kiswahili that
constituted contact and conflict. The
data in casual conversations and
observations was written down in a
notebook.
The second phase of the research
involved face-to-face interviews with
16 individuals. The 16 consisted of
two ordinary citizens drawn from
each of the four study sites. We
selected the interviewees purposively
based on our judgement of their
knowledge of the day-to-day social life
in their respective areas. Their
4 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
experience in interacting with citizens
from all walks of life and on a daily
basis was considered.
The interviews were largely
unstructured and proceeded in the
form of open conversation. The
conversations were based on guiding
question developed following
(Bowern 2008). Sample guiding
questions for the topic of this article
included: (i) if and when the
participants spoke Kiswahili; (ii) if and
when they used a particular variety;
(iii) general impressions of
participants about Kiswahili; (iv)
impression about who spoke ‘the
same’ and ‘differently’; (v) how
participants judged particular
varieties, that is, which varieties are
prestigious and which ones were
considered inferior; and (vi) language
perceptions and attitudes of the
citizens. The interviews also yielded
information about the demographics
and the kinds of mobility and
linguistic repertoires at Namanga.
We conducted all of the interviews
in Kiswahili as the participants’ code
of choice. The interviews were audio-
recorded with informed consent from
the participants. The interviews were
then transcribed and eventually
translated into English. The
transcription and translation were
done by the principal researcher of the
study who has experience as an
English-Kiswahili/Kiswahili-English
translator.
The analysis was done qualitatively
based on the themes of the study.
Four main codes (issues) that
constitute the theme ‘language contact
and conflict’ were derived from the
data collected, these are: (i) citizen
mobility; (ii) varieties and labels; (iii)
citizens’ attitudes to language; and (iv)
demonstration of linguistic power. We
have presented these in section four
of this article. Each issue is illustrated
with relevant extract(s) from data
transcripts. We have used a roman
number enclosed in double brackets
to mark each extract.
English words and phrases in the
original Kiswahili extracts have been
italicized, and so are the Kiswahili
words and phrases in the English
translation of the extracts. Speech
marks are used to mark direct
quotations from responses of the
participants. Ellipsis is used to show
that some parts of speech have been
left out of the extracts. Bold typeface
is used to mark that part of the extract
that is emphasised in the context in
which it has been used.
Theoretical and Literature
Review
The discussion in this article is
informed by the Citizen
Sociolinguistics (CS) model proposed
by Betsy Rymes and Andrea Leone-
Pizzighella (2014). The CS model is
conceptualized both as a theoretical
and methodological framework that
draws from other theories such as
citizen science, participatory culture,
orders of indexicality and
communicative repertoires.
According to Rymes and Leone, the
CS model seeks to provide an
Kiswahili in Contact and Conflict: The Case of Namanga Border Town in East Africa 5
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
understanding of language and social
life by tracing the ways ordinary
citizens comprehend and make use of
the world of languages around them.
As such, the CS model is summarized
as the study of language-use based on
citizen (public) participation (Rymes
and Leone 2014). The model pays
attention to the participation of
ordinary citizens in social interactions,
also called ‘citizenship’ (Hausendorf
and Bora 2006). It traces the way
discourse genres, texts and people
circulate back and forth in social
interactions (Moore 2015).
The CS model considers language
as a social act, and speaking as a social
action, and hence looks at situated
uses of language and other modalities
of communication in the day-to-day
interactions. It emphasises the need to
obtain research data empirically from
the social contexts where the language
is used. It calls for the investigation of
a myriad of issues such as (i) varieties
of language in use; (ii) language choice
decisions that speakers make as
reflected in the local patterns of
language use; (iii) ideologies that
citizens have about language; and (iv)
attitudes of citizens towards language
as reflected in what they do with it. We
found these issues directly related to
language in social interactions and
language contact situations, hence, the
suitability of the methodology for the
study.
Peter Siemund (2008) observes
that systematic studies of language
contact situations seriously started
with the publication of Uriel
Weinreich’s seminal monograph
Languages in Contact: Findings and
Problems (1953). Siemund adds that it
is for this reason that Weinreich is
considered the founder of contact
linguistics. Following Weinreich’s
publication, language contact received
considerable attention from linguists,
such as Clyne (1998, 2003); Sankoff
(2009); Siemund (2008); Thomason
(2001); Thomason and Kaufman
(1998) among others.
Another group of scholars from
the late 1960s through 1990s, such as
Haarmann (1986, 1990); Mackey
(1967); Nelde (1987, 1994, 1997); and
Ninyoles (1969) recognized language
conflict as an integral outcome of
language contact situations in
multilingual communities
(Darquennes 2010). Language conflict
was then defined as a form of open
(and sometimes violent)
disagreements, tensions, resentments
and differences of opinion between
and among ethnic groups, and which
came about as a result of language or
simply expressed through language
(Nelde 1994). These kinds of language
contacts and conflicts became the
most studied the world over. Nelde
opines that the initial studies in inter-
ethnic language conflicts suggested
that most conflicts originated in
historical, political and economic
factors between members of the
ethnic groups in a multilingual
community.
However, she argues that this is not
always the case as some conflicts can
also be self-generated in a multilingual
6 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
community. She adds that these kinds
of conflicts are mostly characterized
by competition between language
groups, each trying to find space in the
linguistic hierarchies in a multilingual
society, and dominant languages
trying to outdo the less dominant
languages. According to Darquennes
(2010), in some cases, the
disadvantaged or weaker groups
choose to cooperate with the
dominant groups and lead to some
other outcomes, but in other cases,
they may choose to put up some form
of political resistance.
Previous studies in East Africa
have been limited to understanding
linguistic outcomes of contact
between Kiswahili and other
languages (Akidah 2013; Bosha 1993;
DzaheneQuarshie 2010; Gowers
1952). These studies have concerned
themselves with how Kiswahili and
other languages such as Arabic,
English and indigenous African
languages influence each other
through borrowing. Essentially, these
studies have taken the approach of
looking at contact as a product of
inter-ethnic influences in multilingual
societies. However, as Mattheier
(1984) has shown, conflicts over
language use can also occur in
‘monolingual communities’ –
communities in which one dominant
language is used. It would appear that
what Mattheier alludes to is what
Gumperz (1982) referred to as ‘social
conflicts’. These kinds of conflicts can
best be studies in face-to-face
conversations.
Face-to-face conversations are
considered vital in interactional
sociolinguistics on the basis that a
conversation is more than just the
exchange of information, but also
some form of social event in which
different individuals come to play
(Gumperz 1982; Madsen 2006).
Gumperz and Madsen argue that in a
conversation, every linguistic act can
be seen as a social act in which
speakers negotiate social relations
through various strategies. Many
issues suffice in the process of
negotiating identities and relations.
Thus, to understand the
communicative phenomena that arise
in human interaction, Gumperz &
Cook-Gumperz (1982) advise that we
need ‘to go’ gain insights into the
communicative processes by which
the phenomena arise. This article
looks into these issues in
communicative processes in which
Kiswahili functions at Namanga.
Issues Emerging out of the
use of Kiswahili at
Namanga
Our analysis of the data collected in
language contact and conflict
situations among the ordinary citizens
at Namanga revealed four major
issues that we present and discuss
below. These are:
• varieties and labels;
• attitudes of the citizens to
language;
• demonstration of linguistic
power; and
• citizen mobility
Kiswahili in Contact and Conflict: The Case of Namanga Border Town in East Africa 7
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
Varieties and Labels
Variety is used as a neutral term for
language and dialects (Meyerhoff
2006), and also, any of the human
speech patterns associated with a
group within a dialect or an individual
within a group (Wardhaugh 1986).
Our data revealed socially constructed
varieties of Kiswahili at Namanga
which are in turn assigned unique
labels by the ordinary users. Notable
varieties include: (i) Kiswahili cha
Tanzania (Tanzanian Kiswahili); (ii)
Kiswahili cha Kenya (Kenyan Kiswahili);
(iii) Kiswahili cha Uganda (Ugandan
Kiswahili); (iv) Kiswahili cha Coast
(Coastal Kiswahili); and (v) Kimaaja
(Street Kiswahili).
‘Kiswahili cha Tanzania’ (Tanzanian
Kiswahili) (“clean Kiswahili
2
”)
2
“Clean Kiswahili” is our direct translation of
“Kiswahili safi”, a term used by participants to
describe the Kiswahili cha Tanzania. We chose a direct
The Kiswahili cha Tanzania variety was
ascribed to Kiswahili speakers of
Tanzanian nationality at Namanga. It
was referred to as Kiswahili safi (clean
Kiswahili) or Kiswahili kizuri (good
Kiswahili). The following extract
relates to this variety.
In extract (1) the participant who is
a Kenyan mentions that there exists a
variety called Kiswahili cha Tanzania
and goes ahead to label it
Kiswahili safi (clean Kiswahili) and
Kiswahili kimenyooka (streamlined
Kiswahili). When asked to elaborate,
the participant in extract (2) assigns
morelabels as “Kiswahili pure” and
“Kiswahili original”.
Other participants referred to this
variety as Kiswahili sanifu (standard
Kiswahili), “Kiswahili fluent”, and
translation in order to capture the metaphorical sense
in which participants understand and speak of the
variety, but later in the analysis we show that they
actually mean ‘pure Kiswahili’.
(1)
…Kiswahili ya Tanzania
enyewe inakuanga poa sana.
Yaani ni ile Kiswahili…sijui
nikwambie aje…yaani ni ile
Kiswahili safi kabisa. Yaani
akiongea unasikia Kiswahili
kimenyooka kabisa…
…The Tanzanian Kiswahili is very
good. I mean it is that kind of
Kiswahili… I don’t know how I can
explain it to you…I mean it is a kind
of Kiswahili that is very pure. I mean
when one speaks you understand
that the Kiswahili is very
streamlined...
(2)
Watanzania wanazungumza
Kiswahili kizuri sana. Kiswahili
chao si kama chetu. Chao ni
pure kabisa. Basi kama kuna
Kiswahili original ni kile cha
Tanzania.…
Tanzanians speak very good
Kiswahili. Their Kiswahili is not like
ours. Theirs is very pure. So, if there
is an original Kiswahili, it is that
spoken by Tanzanians. …
8 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
“Kiswahili cha ndani” (deep Kiswahili).
The speakers of this variety were said
to occupy a particular space on the
Tanzanian side of Namanga. This
geographical positioning implied that
not every citizen at Namanga can
speak it. The fact that most of these
descriptions and labels were assigned
by speakers who do not speak this
variety implies that the participants
have certain socially constructed ideas
of what constitutes ‘original’ and
‘correct’ Kiswahili and what
constitutes ‘incorrect’ Kiswahili. But
still, some people are unable to learn
and speak that ‘correct’ Kiswahili even
when they are aware that the variety
they speak is not ‘correct’ Kiswahili.
The “clean Kiswahili” was
described as being grammatically
correct and ‘clean’ in the sense that it
does not employ any form of code-
mixing. Our observation confirmed
that while the grammatical correctness
of the Kiswahili spoken in the
identified space on the Tanzanian side
of the border, it was not exactly
similar to standard Kiswahili as used
in formal domains of language use, the
participants strove to maintain some
level of fluency of spoken Kiswahili
by maintaining word agreement. They
were found to have a bigger Kiswahili
vocabulary.
Words, such as bibi (grandmother),
parachichi (avocado), nauli (fare), njoo
(come), mhudumu (waiter), agizia (place
an order), among others were heard in
this space and not in other spaces
where English language equivalents
were used. Conversations among the
people portrayed more of the
traditional Swahili cultural honorifics
in forms of relational titles such as
mamangu (my mother), mjomba (uncle),
kaka (elder brother), ndugu (brother),
dada (sister), and mzee wangu (my elder).
Such features formed the basis on
which the Kiswahili cha Tanzania was
labelled clean and original.
‘Kiswahili cha Kenya’
(“brokenbroken Kiswahili”)
Kiswahili cha Kenya described as
“broken-broken Kiswahili” is a variety
that was ascribed to the Kenyan
speakers at Namanga. This type has
characteristics represented in extracts
(3) and (4) below.
(3)
…wengi
wanasema
Kiswahili cha
Kenya kweli
kimepinda.
Yaani hakijakaa
sawa. Kiko
broken kidogo
…
…. many
say that the
Kenyan
Kiswahili is
not
streamlined.
Meaning it is
not in good
shape. It is a
bit broken …
(4)
Wakenya
wanazungumza
Kiswahili
isipokuwa ile
Kiswahili
yao ni
brokenbroken
….
Wanazungumza
tu yao broken.
Kenyans
speak
Kiswahili
although
their
Kiswahili is a
broken-broken
one. …They
just speak
their broken
one.
Kiswahili in Contact and Conflict: The Case of Namanga Border Town in East Africa 9
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
In extract (3) the participant, who is a
Tanzanian, labels the Kenyan variety
of Kiswahili spoken at Namanga as
“broken” and in extract (4) the
Kenyan
3
participant labels it as
“broken-broken”. When probed
further, participants mentioned that
kimepinda (it is ‘bent’), which is the
opposite of kimenyooka as applied to
the Tanzanian Kiswahili in extract (1).
Other participants said that this
variety is kombo or kombo-kombo which
is a synonym of pinda (bent).
The participants further said that
this variety is not “original Kiswahili”
because it is mixed with English unlike
the Tanzanian Kiswahili which was
said to be ‘pure’ Kiswahili. Thus,
code-mixing stands out as the major
salient feature that characterized the
variety of the “Kenya Kiswahili” at
Namanga. The following extract
illustrates code-mixing:
(5)
“…fungueni Bibilia zenu kitabu
cha Mark chapter eight verse
ten.” Open your Bibles at the
book of Mark chapter eight
verse ten.
The participant in extract (5) is a
pastor in a religious gathering who
starts speaking in Kiswahili and then
draws in an English phrase before
switching back to Kiswahili. This
appeared to be a result of lack of
fluency in the Kiswahili language, not
3
Although this participant is Kenyan, he reports of the
form of Kiswahili used by Kenyans as though he is not
part of them. Several other participants spoke this way,
perhaps as a way of trying to prove their objectivity.
4
There are 9 noun classes in Kiswahili grouped
according to how the noun modifies verbs, adjectives
only for the interlocutor but also for
the addressees whom the pastor
believed would not understand the
part of the phrase if stated in
Kiswahili.
The observation was also made at
the lexical level in the domains of
transport, entertainment, and trade.
Many English and other nonKiswahili
words were used in speech by the
ordinary participants on the Kenyan
side of the border. The transport
sector used words such as driver, fare,
stage, and doh (slang for money).
Words, mainly extracted from the
English language, such as goalkeeper,
goal, linesman, penalty, league, among
others were observed in the area of
entertainment. This was different
from the Tanzanian variety which
attempted a Kiswahili rendering of the
words so that, for example,
goalkeeper was rendered as “golikipa”
or simply “kipa”.
Another feature of the
“brokenbroken” variety is probably
what one participant in a casual
conversation described as hakina
mpangilio (it has no order). This
implied that there was disorderliness
indexes and ungrammatical practices.
In this regard, Kenyan Kiswahili in
conversations included statements,
such as ile gari imejaa (that vehicle is
full). This construction defies the
Kiswahili noun class system
4
where
and other grammatical entities in a sentence. Being an
agglutinate language, Kiswahili allows each noun class
to be represented by a particular prefix that is
attached to the stems of grammatical categories when
it is used in a sentence to allow for intra-sentential
agreement among components of a sentence.
10 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
the noun gari (vehicle) which is
normally placed in the (li/ya) noun
class is in this example positioned in
the (i/zi) noun class. The result of this
is lack of intra-sentential agreement
among nouns, verbs and adjectives,
and the other components of the
sentence.
‘Kiswahili cha Uganda’ (“lile-lile
Kiswahili”)
Kiswahili cha Uganda variety translated
here as “little-little Kiswahili” is a
variety of Kiswahili mapped onto
speakers of Kiswahili from Uganda at
Namanga. Participants labelled it as
kidogo-kidogo (a little-little), kidogo tu
(just a little) or kidogo sana (very little).
(6)
Kiswahili cha
Uganda
nacho ni
kidogo sana.
Wale kuongea
kwao ni
ngumu….
Ukimpata
mmoja
anaongea
Kiswahili then
ni kidogo tu.
The Ugandan
Kiswahili is
very minimal.
Those ones
find it hard
to speak….
If you find
one speaking
Kiswahili,
then it is just
a little.
(7)
…Mganda
hakifahamu
kabisa. Na
kama
anafahamu,
kidogo
kidogo…
…A
Ugandan
does know it
completely.
And if they
do, it is very
minimal…
According to the participant in extract
(6), it is rare to come across a citizen
of Uganda at Namanga speaking
Kiswahili. If one is found, he will be
speaking very minimal or just a little
Kiswahili. This view was shared by
other participants, including in casual
conversations, who described the
variety as kidogo-kidogo just as the
participant in extract (7) observes.
Their description of kidogo-kidogo was
that the Ugandan citizens at Namanga
rarely speak Kiswahili.
Participants claimed that Ugandans
will mostly remain quiet in a group
conversation and not contribute to a
debate held in Kiswahili. But
whenever they participate in a
conversation involving Kiswahili,
their responses will be short. One
participant in casual conversations
observed, “Wanajua maneno tu na
hawawezi hata tunga sentensi” (They only
know lone words and cannot even
construct a sentence.) Though we did
not observe any Ugandan speaker at
Namanga, our conversation with
some Ugandan citizens at another
study site at the Busia border town on
the Kenya-Uganda border supports
this observation. Several Ugandan
speakers we came across reported that
they speak “a littlelittle Kiswahili.”
Our conversations with them
displayed either lack of confidence,
reluctance or wariness towards
Kiswahili. Most of their speeches were
accompanied and sometimes
substituted with frequent gestures
such as nodding and pointing. This
assertion was evidenced by one
participant in an interview who
reported that whenever they go to the
market where circumstances force
Kiswahili in Contact and Conflict: The Case of Namanga Border Town in East Africa 11
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
them to speak Kiswahili, they
normally do not engage in stories, but
rather go direct to the point:
(8)
Sisi
tunauliza
tu, “Habari?
Unauza
ngapi?” au
“Pesa
ngapi?”…
We simply
ask, “How are
you? How
much are you
selling?” Or
“How much
money?”…
However, some Ugandan participants
at Busia displayed some reasonable
confidence in the use of Kiswahili.
Their competence resembled that of
most Kenyan participants, with
similar codemixing between English
and Kiswahili. This is illustrated by
extract below:
(9)
Kujifunza
Kiswahili ni
important mostly
kwa wale
wanasafiri
kama Nairobi,
kama hata
kufanya
biashara, kama
kutafuta kazi.
Kiswahili
inakusaidia
kwa
interaction …
Learning
Kiswahili is
important mostly
for those who
travel [to
places] like
Nairobi, like
even to
engage in
business, like
to look for
employment,
Kiswahili
helps you in
interaction …
Unlike most of the Ugandan
participants who were unwilling to
pick on Kiswahili as the preferred
language of the interviews and
interaction during the study, the
participant in the extract above did
not shy off speaking some Kiswahili.
However, his Kiswahili was
incoherent, and lacked subjectverb
agreement in addition to being a
mixture of Kiswahili and English.
Kiswahili ‘cha Coas’ / Kiswahili
cha Pwani (“sweet Kiswahili”)
Kiswahili cha Coasti/Kiswahili cha Pwani
(Sweet Kiswahili) variety of Kiswahili
was reported and observed in the
transport domain at Namanga. It was
associated with truck drivers who
were said to originate from Mombasa
or Pwani, Kiswahili word for ‘coast’.
The variety was labelled as “Kiswahili
(11)
Hawa…hawa
tuseme kama
madereva
hawa wa
matrela za
kutoka
Mombasa
hisi…wao
ndio
unaweza
sema
Kiswahili
chao kisuri.
… Kiswahili
kile kisuri,
yani
kinafurahisha
kusikiliza…
unajua huyu
anajua
Kiswahili.
Kitamu
nakwambia…
These… let
us say for
example
these
drivers of
trucks from
Mombasa…
those are
those whose
Kiswahili is
good… that
good
Kiswahili, I
mean, it is
pleasing to
listen
to…you
will know
that this
one knows
Kiswahili. It
is sweet I tell
you…
(10)
Kiswahili cha
Coasti ni
Kiswahili
tamu.
Ukiwasikiliza
kwa mfano
hawa
madereva
wanaopita
hapa kutoka
huko…
nakwambia
utapenda
Kiswahili
chao…
hicho ndio
unasikianga
Kiswahili cha
Pwani sasa…
The Coastal
Kiswahili is
sweet Kiswahili.
If you
listen, for
example, to
these drivers
who pass here
from there…I
tell you, you
will like their
Kiswahili …
now that is
what you
normally hear
[people call]
Kiswahili cha
Pwani.
12 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
tamu” (sweet Kiswahili). The
following examples illustrates the
type:
The description of the Coastal Kiswahili in extracts (10) and (11) show that this
variety is based not on the grammatical ‘correctness’ as was the Kiswahili cha
Tanzania in extracts (1) and (2) or ‘incorrectness’ for Kiswahili cha Kenya in (3),
(4) and (5), but on the acoustic features. This comprised the way the speakers
pronounce certain lexical items of Kiswahili. For example:
(12)
Wewe Kijana
unaithwa
nani?
(Young man,
what is your
name?)
Example (12) provided by a speaker
shows a change in word forms where,
instead of the normal /unaitwa/
(13)
…. Hiyo inaitwa
Kimaaja. Ni lugha
ya vijana ya mtaa.
…tuseme ni
Kiswahili tu lakini
kimepinduliwa kwa
nyuma.
…. That is called
Kimaaja.
It is a street
language for the
youth language
(…). We can
say it is just
Kiswahili but it
has been
reversed.
(14)
…Hiyo Kimaaja ni
kama kurudisha tu
Kiswahili na nyuma.
Kama “soda”
unaita “daso”.
Yaani unarudisha
Kiswahili nyuma.
Kama ni “chai”
unaita “icha”…
…. That
Kimaaja is just
like speaking
Kiswahili
backwards. Like
“soda” you
call it “daso”.
I mean you
speak Kiswahili
backwards. If it
is “chai” you call
it “icha”…
Kiswahili in Contact and Conflict: The Case of Namanga Border Town in East Africa 13
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
(you are called), the pronunciation given
is /unaithwa/. In this example, the dental
stop /t/ is replaced with another dental
stop /th/. Another example picked from
a conversation is the use of palatal stop
/dh/ instead of alveolar stop /d/ as in
/ndhugu/ in place of /ndugu/.
This type of speech is similar to that
of the traditional dialects of Kiswahili,
5
especially Kimvita and Kiamu as spoken
on the mainland, Mombasa and Lamu
island respectively. This shows that the
participants and citizens at Namanga are
attracted to this variety of Kiswahili
mainly due to its ‘pleasant’ or melodious
accent. While this variety was attributed
to truck drivers from the coastal parts of
Kenya, the variety could actually be a
mixture of varieties from other
traditional dialects other than those from Mombasa. Edgar Polome (1967)
argues that there are features which cut across the dialects as a result of cross-
dialect influences.
‘Kimaaja’ (“street Kiswahili”)
Kimaaja or “Kiswahili cha mtaa” (street Kiswahili), is a variety of Kiswahili
associated mostly with the youthful motor vehicle touts at Namanga. It was
described as “Kiswahili cha wahuni” (Kiswahili for the hooligans), or more
neutrally, “lugha ya vijana” (language of the youth). This is illustrated in extracts
(13), (14) and (15).
The participant in extract (13)
describes Kimaaja as a language for the
youth spoken on the streets of
Namanga. The participant in extract
(15) affirms that the variety is not
spoken by all the youths but a small
section of touts, whom she refers to
as “wahuni” (hooligans). Asked about
how it is actually spoken, participant
5
See Polome, E. C. (1967). Swahili Language Handbook.
in extract (10), she said,
“kimepinduliwa” (it is reversed), and the
participant in extract (14) gives
examples of soda as daso, and chai (tea)
as (icha).
Our observation confirmed that
the Kimaaja variety is based on a
reverse order of syllables where, in
most cases, the last syllable in a word
(15)
Kimaaja ni cha
vijana wachache tu.
Ma-group
ndogondogo sana.
Kama sasa hawa
vijana makanga
na hizo group zao.
… So ni
Kiswahili cha
wahuni tu.
Unawapata kwa
stage za magari
sana sana hawa
wanaingiza watu
kwa magari. Pia
wale wanabeba
mizigo…
Kimaaja is
spoken by just a
few youths. Very
small groups. For
example, these
tout youths and
their groups.
So it is just
Kiswahili for
the hoodlums.
You will find
them at the car
parks, these
who lead people
to vehicles. Also
those who carry
luggage…
14 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
comes first and the first comes last.
Another example that illustrates such
inflections is “gari lile” (that vehicle) as
(riga leli). But in some cases, especially
where a personal pronoun is involved,
the pronoun comes first. A popular
phrase we captured during our
observations was “tundae vihi” instead
of “twende hivi” (let us go this way).
Thus, the reverse aspect of speech in
Kimaaja is limited to the lexical level.
Kimaaja behaved as a “neutral”
variety for the group consisting of
members drawn from the other
varieties of Kiswahili in contact at
Namanga. This is considering the fact
that the word Kimaaja itself is a reverse
of the Kiswahili word ‘Kijamaa’
(socialism/collectivism). Thus, while
Kimaaja is said to be used for purposes
of maintaining secrets and furthering
anti-social behaviour, among its
speakers, it could also be a product of
linguistic tensions between the
‘formal’ varieties of Kiswahili spoken
at Namanga. The variety’s name has
its roots in a predominantly
Tanzanian vocabulary and a national
development philosophy. The variety
could also be looked at in terms of a
deliberate defiance and protest against
the grammatically demanding “clean
Kiswahili” of Namanga.
The participants reporting about
the varieties of Kiswahili, that we have
presented, reveal their perceptions of
each variety. These perceptions
contribute to the conflict that arise
when speakers of these varieties come
into contact. This is mainly because
the perceptions lead to varied
attitudes towards not only the
varieties themselves but also the
speakers of the varieties. We now turn
to discussing some of these attitudes.
Attitudes of the Citizens to
Language
Language attitudes is defined as the
feelings which people have about their
own language or the language(s) of
others (Crystal 1997). These attitudes
form part of the communicative
competence of the members of a
speech community (Davis 1995), and
have been shown to be powerful in
influencing linguistic behaviour and
ultimately, linguistic forms (Fasold
1979). The attitudes are normally
reflected in a variety of perceptions,
judgements and sentiments, both
positive and negative, favourable and
unfavourable, ambivalent and
tolerant.
In the context of our study,
language attitudes of the people were
discovered as useful in explaining
conflicts in language contact
situations at Namanga. These were
discoverable in the social varieties
and labels that we
discussed above.
The analysis agreed
with Mirriam
Meyerhoff’s (2006)
view that labels and
varieties
provide a
basis for
identifying
the close
association
Kiswahili in Contact and Conflict: The Case of Namanga Border Town in East Africa 15
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
between attitudes to language use and
language users. Our examination of
the data collected brings out three
sets of feelings and perceptions,
which we discuss below.
Posive/Favourable Atudes
In response to direct questions
requiring participants to rate the
extent of the use of Kiswahili at
Namanga and how they think the
language should be used, some of the
participants expressed positive
attitudes towards Kiswahili. The
following are examples from our
findings:
(16) …Lugha ni …The
Kiswahili tu. language is
Hiyo ndio just Kiswahili.
tunatumia 100 That is the per
cent... one which we
use 100 per
cent….
(17) …Hiyo hiyo tu Kiswahili. Kaka
nimekueleza Tanzania nzima ni
Kiswahili. Mijini,
majumbani, Kiswahili….
Kaka…hivi nakwambia hamna
lugha nyingine hapa. Mji huu wote
unavyouona ni Kiswahili tu. Kenya,
Tanzania,
Kiswahili, Kiswahili pekee…
Watu hapa ni Kiswahili
wanazungumza.
Asiyejua ni mgeni. Labda kaja
jana au leo. Iwapo ni juzi, huyo
ashajifunza tayari. Hata kama ni
kile cha maneno mawili tatu.
…Just that very
Kiswahili. Brother, I
have told you that the
whole of Tanzania
it is just Kiswahili. In
towns, in homes, just
Kiswahili… Brother…I
am telling you that there is
no other language here.
The whole of this town
that you see is just
Kiswahili.
Kenya,
Tanzania, only
Kiswahili…
It is Kiswahili that
people speak here. He
who does not know
Kiswahili is a
stranger.
Maybe he came
yesterday or today. If
it is yesterday but
one, that one has
already learnt it. Even
if it is only a few
words.
16 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
The participants were enthusiastic in
revealing that Kiswahili is the “only”
language spoken at Namanga. The
participant in extract (16) went ahead
to quote ‘100 per cent’ as the extent to
which citizens at Namanga use
Kiswahili. Similarly, the participant in
extract (17) claims that Kiswahili is the
most used language in the whole of
Namanga and Tanzania, both in
homes (private spaces) and in towns
(public spaces). The emphasis laid on
these assertions by the participant
serves to portray Kiswahili as the
favoured language at Namanga.
However, casual conversations
during observations and indirect
questioning of the participants during
the interviews revealed that only the
variety labelled as “clean Kiswahili” is
seen to be highly regarded and
favoured by the citizens than the other
varieties. As extract 4 shows, the
positive and favourable attitude
towards the “clean variety” can also
be decoded from its several positive
labels while the other varieties were
described by the use of only one or
two labels. In one of the public
religious gatherings, the preacher
asked the gathering for the equivalent
of the word “lecturer” in Kiswahili. It
took some guesses from the audience
before the preacher almost settled for
“Mwalimu wa chuo kikuu”, as voiced by
the gathering before changing his
mind insisting that he wanted to hear
from a Tanzanian.
(18)
…. Watanzania
mko wapi jameni?
Nipeni neno
mzuri…
(kicheko)…
Haya tafuteni ….
…. Tanzanians
where are you
folks? Give me a
good word….
(laughter)…okay,
look for it…
Extract (18) above shows that the
preacher does not trust the vocabulary
supplied by speakers of other
varieties, and believes that a
Tanzanian citizen could have supplied
a better word. The preacher believed
that the phrase ‘mwalimu wa chuo kikuu’
was not provided by a Tanzanian
speaker of Kiswahili. The preacher’s
trust and preference for the “clean
Kiswahili” variety demonstrates an
ideologically rooted attitude towards
varieties of Kiswahili spoken at
Namanga.
Negave/unfavourable and
Sgmazed Atudes
Most of the citizens who reported that
they did not to speak the
‘brokenbroken’ variety of Kiswahili
revealed concealed negative or
unfavourable attitudes towards it.
This was evident in their difficulty in
explaining what ‘broken’ or ‘broken-
broken’ actually means. Many of the
participants replied “sijui vile naweza
kueleza” (I don’t know how I can
explain). Compared with the “clean
variety”, this variety did not attract
many labels. It was only explained as
‘broken’ or ‘broken-broken’. Broken-
broken served as a way of
Who is a Homosexual? Rhetoric and the Construction of Ugandan Gay in Selected Ugandan Op-Eds 17
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
emphasizing the ‘broken’ nature of
the variety.
Extract (19) demonstrates a negative
attitude towards those varieties of
Kiswahili spoken at Namanga that the
speaker does not subscribe to. The
participant vows that he will stick to
his variety should he encounter a
speaker of another variety even if the
other speaker was elderly. The
participant says that every citizen at
Namanga should know at least some
words, such as “shikamoo” and
“mambo” that are associated with other
varieties should not be used to address
or greet a grown up! The participant
says that for a grown up, “mpaka
umwamkue vizuri” (you must greet
him/her well). In this context,
‘greeting well’ is associated with the
variety labelled as the “clean
Kiswahili”.
As to what language Kimaaja is, the
response of the participant was:
(19)
…Siwezi kubadilisha. Kama
nikipata mama anauza
matunda siezi kumwambia
“mama nipe matunda”,
nitamwambia “mama
shikamoo, naomba uniuzie
matunda”. Yeye anajua maana
ya “Shikamoo” … Lakini sasa
nikienda Maili Tisa huko ama
Kajiado nimwambie mtu
“Shikamoo”, hajui. Na ni mtu
mzima! Sasa kama huko
wanapenda tu kusema
“mambo?” Wewe niambie mtu
mzima wewe utamwambia
“mambo?” Kweli ? Ni rika
yako huyo? Hapana!
Mpaka umwamkue vizuri…
… I cannot change. If I come
across an old woman selling
fruits, I cannot tell her “Mama
nipe matunda”, I will tell her “Mama
naomba uniuzie matunda”. She
understands the meaning of
‘Shikamoo’. …. But now if I go past
Maili Tisa or Kajiado and I tell
someone “Shikamoo”, they do not
know. And he is a grown up!
There they just like saying
“mambo?” You tell me, can you tell
a grown up “mambo?” No! It is a
must that you greet him well…
(20)
Kimaaja si lugha kaka. Hiyo
ni style tu. Ni kama kugeuza
kama mtu unageuza gari. Ama
unaendesha ukirundi
nyuma… (kicheko)…Sasa
wao wanazungumza wakirudi
nyuma wakipindua maneno.
Wanaita ni lugha yao lakini ni
ya watu tu wa kupora watu.
Hao ni matapeli kaka!
Kimaaja is not a language my
brother. That is just a style. It is
like reversing the way a person
reverses a vehicle. Or you are
driving going backwards…
(laughter)… So they speak
backwards reversing words. They
call it their language but it is simply
for people who rob others. Those
ones are conmen my brother!
18 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
The way the sentiments of the
speaker, in extract (20), are articulated
conveys meaning that Kimaaja is a
stigmatized variety at Namanga. In
addition to being associated with
‘unlawful’ and anti-social activities
such as fraud, the participant sounds
unamused with the ‘reversed’ manner
in which the variety is spoken. The
negative attitude towards Kimaaja is
not just as a result of the nature and
conduct of its speakers, but also the
‘reversed’ nature of the code itself.
During observation, another
participant denied being able to speak
Kimaaja even though he was a tout.
His reply was “No no no! Hiyo si ya mtu
kama mimi bro! Hiyo ni ya wengine” (No
no no! That is not for someone like
me brother! That is for other people).
Insisting that Kimaaja is not for people
of his calibre, the participant was not
ready to be associated with the variety,
signalling its stigmatized nature. As
Florence Bayiga (2016) has shown,
speakers will definitely deny knowing
a language that they do not respect,
even if they know it.
Attitudes of ambivalence
and tolerance
While some of the participants
expressed indecisive attitudes towards
the different varieties of Kiswahili,
spoken at Namanga, others were
accommodative. One such variety
that attract faltering attitudes is the
one labelled as “Kiswahili tamu”.
(21)
Lakini kile
cha
Coast….
Yaani
wanaivuta
sana. Kwa
mfano
wanasema
“Ewe Ali
waithwa
hapa
wewe”.
(Kicheko)
But that one
spoken at
the Coast….
I mean they
really stress it.
For example,
they say
“You Ali,
you are being
called here”.
(Laughter)
In extract (21), the participant
describes the “Coastal Kiswahili” and
in the process performs the way it is
spoken. The ‘twisting of the voice’,
accent, facial expression, smile and
laughter of the participant while
making this performance shows that
he feels thrilled and entertained at the
speaker’s variety. It could also be that
the participant sees the dialect as
comical.
The participant does not show
outright positive or negative attitude
towards this variety. Asked whether
they could speak the variety, most
participants declined because as they
said, they cannot “twist” the tongue.
This takes us back to Bayiga’s remark
about a speaker denying knowledge of
a variety they do not revere. A further
ambivalent attitude towards a variety
of Kiswahili is given below in extract
(22):
Who is a Homosexual? Rhetoric and the Construction of Ugandan Gay in Selected Ugandan Op-Eds 19
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
The participant in extract (22) laughs
at the fact that there are some people
who do not speak “clean Kiswahili”.
Although the participant is amused by
the way some people speak Kiswahili,
he chooses to “understand” rather
than laugh. By choosing to tolerate
such ways of speaking, the participant
demonstrates an attitude of tolerance
as a factor in resolving conflicts in
talk.
From the way participants identify
varieties of Kiswahili spoken at
Namanga, to the way they assign
labels of perception to the varieties,
and finally the kind of attitudes they
hold towards each variety, one can
deduce that the participants believe
that some of the varieties are
linguistically more powerful than the
others. This brings us to the third
theme of this article, namely,
demonstration of linguistic power.
Demonstration of Linguistic
Power
Lian Malai Madsen (2003) illustrates
the notion of power as a form of
symbolic dominance and argues that
language is the primary means of
wielding linguistic power in the
society. Madsen argues that this is so
because the choice of language in a
conversation is a practical linguistic
means of negotiating power.
Regarding this notion, Susan Gal
(2001) contends that some linguistic
variants are more valued and carry
more authority than others. Gal’s
argument demonstrates that some
variants are seen as more correct,
superior and powerful; while others
are seen as less correct, inferior and
less powerful.
Gal proposes that the differing
power status that these variants carry
into an interaction is likely to create
tension as the less valued ones try to
resist and challenge domination by the
powerful ones. Variants spoken at
Namanga exhibit different degrees of
linguistic power. The ordinary citizens
are equally well aware of this. The
following extracts from responses by
participants in interviews illustrate this
point.
(22)
Wengine kama wafanyabiashara
wanazungumza Kiswahili ingawa si
kama hiki chetu hapa sisi. Wajua?
Matamshi yao yanakwaruzana na
lugha zao za mama. Yaani kaka
unakuta mtu azungumza lakini
ukisikiliza unapata anajua maneno ila
kutamka kwakwe balaa… Kaka wewe
wazungumza Kiswahili tena kile safi
sana. Hukwaruzi wewe… (kicheko).
Kuna watu wewe wakizungumza…
(kicheko) yaani unahisi kuwacheka
lakini unawaelewa tu.
Others like the business people speak
Kiswahili although it is not similar to this
one which we speak here. You know? Their
pronunciation conflicts with their mother
tongues. I mean my brother you find a
person speaking, when you listen, you
realize that he knows the words but his
pronunciation is a problem… Brother you
speak Kiswahili in fact a very clean one.
You do not shrub… (laughter). There are
people who when they speak… (laughter)
I mean you feel like laughing at them but
you just choose to understand them.
20 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
The participant (a taxi driver) in
extract (23) argues that some
passengers at Namanga choose to be
served by a tout who is a “fluent”
speaker of Kiswahili as opposed to the
one who mispronounces words.
Hence, the touts, try as much as
possible, to check on their
pronunciation, often adjusting
towards the “clean” variety. This
shows that the “clean” variety is
associated with more power than
other varieties, such as the “broken-
broken” variety and the “street
language”. The attempts to switch
from variety to variety in
conversations, demonstrates power
struggles between different varieties
of Kiswahili at Namanga. The less
powerful variety is abandoned for the
more powerful. In the end, the variety
that is shunned by the citizens is
dominated by the ‘other’.
The participant in extract (24)
stresses that Tanzanian citizens at
Namanga, who are perceived to speak
the “clean variety” cannot speak the
other varieties spoken on the Kenya
side of the town or any other type for
that matter. To emphasise his point,
the participant mockingly mimics how
the Tanzanian nationals would
pronounce it, if they were to speak it
at all. This indexes not just the little
power that is associated with the
variety in question, but also how
inferior it is considered to be, to the
variety of the participant.
Further observations revealed that
linguistic power at Namanga is
demonstrated in relation to space as
discussed under citizen mobility in the
section that follows below. This is to
say that each language variety carries
more power in its respective space.
For instance, the ‘brokenbroken’
variety is more powerful on the
Kenyan side of Namanga while the
“clean variety” has more power in the
Tanzanian side of the same town.
Similarly, the Kimaaja variety is more
powerful in the enclaves where it is
(23)
… Na sasa abiria akiona wewe
una-shrub sana alafu huyu
ananyoosha kidogo anajua
wewe utaweza kumwelekeza
vizuri kidogo kuliko huyu
anashrub. Si ndio sababu inabidi
wanajaribu kuigaiga.
… And now if a passenger sees
that you falter a lot but this other
one is trying to make it correct he
will know that he will be able to
direct him better than the one
who falters. That is the reason
why they will try to imitate.
(24)
Wale Watanzania hawawezi.
Hawawezi kabisa. Na kama anaongea
ile ya Kikenya, huwa anakuwanga
anakuenjoy. (kicheko). Anakuambia
“gari gani, gari gani imejaa?” Sasa yeye
anakuwa ana-kuenjoy tu vile nyinyi
huwa mnazungumzanga.
Those Tanzanians cannot. They simply
cannot. And if he is speaking the Kenyan
Kiswahili, he will be making fun of you…
(laughter). He tells you “which vehicle,
which vehicle is full?” Now he will just
be mocking the way you speak.
Who is a Homosexual? Rhetoric and the Construction of Ugandan Gay in Selected Ugandan Op-Eds 21
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
spoken. A speaker of the “clean
variety” is humbled when in territories
where, for example, Kimaaja is spoken.
The citizen mobility we discuss
next accounts for the varieties and
labels, citizens’ attitudes, and
demonstrates linguistic power that
characterize the use of Kiswahili at
Namanga. It illustrates the incidences
of linguistic conflict in conversations
of ordinary speakers of Kiswahili in
the town.
Citizen Mobility
Citizen mobility is a term that is
invoked in the CS model to refer to
the movement of people in time and
space in the current globalized world.
Rymes and Leone (2014) argue that
the mobility of citizens results in the
convergence (and contact) of
different kinds of linguistic repertoires
in a particular space. This observation
relates to an earlier one by Jan
Blommaert and Ben Rampton (2011)
that migration is not only about
people but also their language
varieties. Blommaert (2005:6) notes
that
…linguistically speaking, the
spaces that people move into are
never empty spaces…, the spaces
are someone’s space, and they are
filled with norms, expectations,
and conceptions of what counts as
proper and normal language use
and what does not count as such.
Blommaert adds that the “space is
filled with complexities that organize
distinctions between the ‘good’,
‘normal’, ‘appropriate’, ‘acceptable’
language use, and the ‘deviant’,
‘abnormal’ language use” (p.6).
Correspondingly, Leonard
Bloomfield (2007) asserts that as
people move, the ‘sedentary’ patterns
of language use come into contact
with the ‘translocal’ forms of language
use, and that the combination of both
brings about unexpected
sociolinguistic effects.
From the data gathered, mobility
of the ordinary citizens at Namanga
has a strong effect on Kiswahili
spoken. When asked about which
people are found at the Namanga
border town, participants responded
as illustrated in extracts (25), (26),
(27), and (28) below.
(25)
Hapa mpakani kuna watu wa
kila aina. Sampuli na sampuli.
Watanzania wapo. Wakenya
wapo. Hata Wazungu wapo.
Kuna Wamaasai wa Kenya na
wa Tanzania. Kuna
Wameru huku pia upande ule
mwingine…
There are people of different kinds
here at the border. Different and
different kinds. There are
Tanzanians. Kenyans are here.
Even Whites are here. There are
Kenyan Maasai and also
Tanzanian Maasai. We have the
Meru here and also on the other
side…
22 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
In extracts (25), (26), and (27),
participants are in concurrence that
Namanga is inhabited by mostly the
citizens of Kenyan and Tanzanian
nationalities, who apart from speaking
different varieties of Kiswahili, speak
their vernaculars, including Kikikuyu
(Kikuyu), Kimeru (Meru), Kimaasai
(Maasai), Kisomali (Somali) on the
Kenya side, and Kimaasai,
Kinyamwezi (Nyamwezi), Kichaga
(Chagga), Kinyaturu (Nyaturu),
among others on the Tanzania side.
The participant in extract (28) notes
that their ‘cross-border-bus’ through
Namanga carries not only Tanzanian
and Kenyan ordinary citizens but also
some Rwandese and Congolese. Some
“Wazungu” (the Whites) are also
found at Namanga (extract 25).
These reports by interview
participants correlate with our
observations where in casual
conversations many of the
participants revealed having moved to
Namanga from different parts of
Kenya such as Nairobi, Machakos,
Kitui, Meru, Embu, Marsabit,
Mandela, Nyeri, Kiambu, Kakamega,
Bungoma, and
Kisii, and others from different parts
of Tanzania such as Moshi, Dar es
Salaam, Mbeya, Tanga, Morogoro,
Mtwara, and Tabora. Other people we
interacted with, in the transport
domain, reported to have travelled
from other countries such as Malawi,
(26)
Makabila ni mix…Lakini
nikianza na huu upande wa
Kenya utapata kuna watu kama
Wakikuyu, Wameru,
Wasomali, Waembu,
Wamaasai wenyewe, na hata
watu kama Waluhya, Wakisii
na wengine…
The tribes are mixed up…But if I
start with the Kenyan side you will
find that there are people like the
Kikuyu, Meru, Somali, Embu,
the Maasai themselves, and even
people like Luhya, Kisii and
others…
(27)
Halafu utapata hata
Wanyamwezi, Wanyaturu,
Wachagga, na wengine tu…
… Then you will also find even the
Nyamwezi, Nyaturu, Chagga and
others…
(28)
Gari inatoka Dar kwenda
Nairobi na tena Nairobi hadi
Dar. Inapepa Wakenya,
Watanzania, na hata
wafanyibiashara… unajua
inapepanga watu wengi. So
unaweza pata hata watu wa
Congo huko, hata Rwanda na
kila mahali wako kwa kari.
The vehicle comes from Dar and
heads to Nairobi and also Nairobi
to Dar. I carry Kenyans,
Tanzanians, and even business
people… you know it carries many
people. So, you can even find that
people from there in Congo, and
even Rwanda and everywhere are
in the vehicle…
Who is a Homosexual? Rhetoric and the Construction of Ugandan Gay in Selected Ugandan Op-Eds 23
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
South Africa, Congo and the USA and
were routing to Kenya and Tanzania.
As to what the different groups
of people do at Namanga, the
following extracts will illustrate.
(29)
Nililetwa hapa na
uncle wangu
mwingine
alikuwa ni
contractor…
Alikuwa anafanya
hii kazi ya
kujenga
manyumba. So
si akaniambia
kuna job
zinapatikana za
kupaka rangi
huku...
I was brought
here by one
of my other
uncles who
was a
contractor …
He was doing
the work of
building
houses. So,
he then told
me that there
are normally
painting jobs
here...
(30)
Eee…ndio
wengi ni
wafanyibiashara
na wengine
wanasafiri tu…
Eee…yes,
many are
business
people and
others are just
travelling…
Citizens who reside at Namanga and
those who visit are guided by
different missions such as looking
for jobs and travelling for leisure
(extract 29), business activities
(extract 30), and tourists and job-
related journeys (from casual
conversation). As we observed
above, these citizens speak different
languages and language varieties,
and carry these codes into others’
space(s), resulting into contact of
opposing norms, values,
conceptions and expectations. This
paragraph shows that there are
different ways of speaking, and that
speakers take their ways to be the
best. Tensions and collisions are
bound to happen when they
encounter others in talk. Speakers in
(31)
… kuna Wakenya
wengine wakifika
huko [Namanga
Tanzania] pia
wanazungumza
kama
Watanzania.
Unajua ile
kuzungumza yao
ni kama
fashion…Na pia
kwa sababu wao
ndio wengi
huko. So utapata
sasa
ukizungumza
nao ni lazima
umejaribu
kuingia kwa ile
Kiswahili yao
ndio u-fit.
… there are
some
Kenyans
when they get
there
[Namanga
Tanzania]
they speak
like
Tanzanians.
You know the
way they speak
is like
fashion… And
also because
they are the
majority there.
So, when
speaking
with them
you must try
to speak their
Kiswahili so
that you can
fit.
24 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
conversations are always negotiating
such struggles as reported in extract
(31).
The divergence of Kenyan speakers of
Kiswahili from their variety and the
converge towards the Tanzanian way
of speaking as in extract (31) above
illustrates the notion of space as a
guarded territory where varieties
compete for recognition (Blommaert
2005). The varieties are always in
implicit ‘wars’ where, in most cases,
the variety that occupies the particular
space wins.
However, our observation at
Namanga revealed that this is not
always the case. Sometimes, the
variety that is considered most
powerful (as we discussed above) is
superior in whichever space. For
instance, touts operating from the
main taxi park on the Kenyan side of
the town spotted prospective
passengers in the no man’s land
approaching from the Tanzanian side
and immediately decided to switch to
the variety of “clean Kiswahili”. While
it is understandable that their action
was meant to attract the passengers by
trying to identify with them as friendly
people, it is worth noting that this
happens in the space of the Kenyan
variety of Kiswahili. Our take on this
is that the Kenyan touts could also
have converged towards the ‘clean
variety’ in order to avert a possible
conflict between their variety and that
of the travellers. This observation is
based on the fact that the touts are
aware that the travellers from the
Tanzanian side of the town harbour
unfavourable attitudes towards their
‘broken’ or ‘unclean’ variety. The
touts had to immediately switch back
to their own ‘local’ varieties once the
passengers got onto the vehicle as a
way to reclaim their space. There were
no free conversations between the
different varieties of Kiswahili due to
linguistic tensions between the
speakers.
Another observation we made
about how mobility contributes to
conflict among the Kiswahili speakers
at Namanga is in greetings. For
example, the Kiswahili variety spoken
on the Tanzanian side of Namanga
uses the word “shikamoo” when
addressing seniors. The variety also
has a local way of saying greetings in
respect to different times of the day.
Phrases, such as “za asubuhi?”
(morning news?), “za mchana?”
(midday news), “za jioni?” (evening
news) and “za saa hizi?” (current
news?) are applied in respect to time.
In the Kiswahili cha Kenya variety,
greetings such as “habari?” or “habari
yako?” (how are you?) and “mambo”
(slang for “news”) are used as the
standard irrespective of the time of
the day. Shikamoo is not common on
the Kenya side of the town. However,
as the speakers on this side of town
cross over to the opposite side, they
are confronted with “shikamoo” which
sometimes gets them unprepared. As
already mentioned, our observations
revealed that the speakers of the
“clean variety” stick to their linguistic
norms as they get into the other
people’s spaces, and so conflicts
Who is a Homosexual? Rhetoric and the Construction of Ugandan Gay in Selected Ugandan Op-Eds 25
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
ensue. This serves to demonstrate
linguistic power of the different
varieties as well as citizens’ attitudes
towards them.
Conclusion
In this article, we have presented and
discussed data on contact and conflict
situations in relation to the use of
Kiswahili at Namanga. Our central
concern has been on the nature of
contact and the concept of
conversational conflict, particularly in
conversations involving speakers of
the same language – Kiswahili. The
discussion has revealed that linguistic
conflicts exist among the speakers of
Kiswahili when they come into
contact at Namanga.
Four major sociolinguistic issues
emerged as the bases for these
conflicts: varieties and labels, citizens’
language attitudes, demonstrations of
linguistic power and citizen mobility.
The four issues are closely linked to
each other. Linguistic mobility leads
to diversified linguistic repertoires at
Namanga in form of varieties which
then find labels in the context of use.
These varieties carry inherent
attitudes, with linguistic power being
part of these attitudes.
The varieties and labels, the
linguistic power, and the inherent
language attitudes, and how these vary
across spaces are key findings in this
paper. These issues can be understood
6
The “theory” of ‘language as a local practice’ as
conceptualized by Alistair Pennycook (2010) views
language not as a pre-given entity, but as a byproduct
of social practices of its speakers, and argues that
in two ways; first, in terms of the
dynamic and versatile nature of
language as a local practice
6
(Pennycook 2010). Therefore,
Kiswahili, just like any other language,
is dynamic and versatile, and prone to
variation based on factors that are
social as well as contextual (local).
Secondly, the above factors can be
construed in terms of the varied
trajectories that the development of
Kiswahili in the East African region
has taken over time. For instance, the
fact that the Tanzanian Kiswahili is
labelled as superior to other varieties
can be understood as a product of
Tanzania’s “Kiswahili as the official
and national language policy” that has
been spearheaded by the Tanzanian
government since independence.
Equally, the less superior varieties
of Kiswahili that emerged in the study,
that is, the Ugandan and Kenyan
Kiswahili can also be understood in
terms of the pro-English language
policies in Kenya and Uganda that
have given prominence to English
over Kiswahili. As a result of the
varied statuses accorded to Kiswahili
in national and official matters in
these countries. The use and
perceptions about the language
among the ordinary citizens have been
affected by policy patterns. As a
rejoinder, we conclude this article by
emphasizing the fact that Namanga
displays a perfect example of a local
knowledge of the immediate environment where the
practices take place be taken into consideration when
analyzing the language use.
26 Mawazo, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2020
Vol. 14, No. 2, December
2020
space, in East Africa, where
meaningful and informative studies
relating to different sociolinguistic
aspects of Kiswahili, such as contact
and conflict can be undertaken.
References
Akidah, M. A. (2013). “Phonological and Semantic
Change in Language Borrowing: The
Case of Arabic Words Borrowed into Kiswahili”.
In International Journal of Education and Research,
1(4):1-20.
Bayiga, F. T. (2016). “Profiles of Multilingualism in
Kampala: An Analysis of
Language Biographies of and Linguistic
Repertoires of University Students”.
PhD Dissertation. Stellenbosch University, South
Africa.
Warner, M. (1999). The Trouble with Normal: Sex,
Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Blommaert, J. and Rampton, B. (2011). “Language
and Superdiversity”. Diversities, 13(22):1-21.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Blommaert, J. (2007). “Language and Movement in
Space”. Auer (ed.), Handbook of Language and
Space: Draft version 2007-08-06.
Bosha, I. (1993). Taathira za Kiarabu katika Kiswahili
pamoja na Kamusi Thulathiya.
(Kiswahili-Kiarabu-Kiingereza): Dar es Salaam:
Dar es Salaam University Press.
Bowern, C. (2010). Fieldwork in Contact
Situations. The Handbook of Language Contact, pp
340 – 357.
Clyne, M. (1998). “Multilingualism”. Coulmas, F.
(ed.) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell
Reference Online.
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of Language Contact:
English and Immigrant Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and
Phonetics, Blackwell: Oxford, UK: 4th Edition.
Darquennes, J. (2015). “Language Conflict
Research: A State of the Art”. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 235:7-32.
Darquennes, J. (2010). “Language Contact and
Language Conflict in Autochthonous
Language Minority Settings in the EU: A
Preliminary Round-up of Guiding Principles
and Research Desiderata”. Multilingua, 29:337-
351.
Davies, W. (1995). Linguistic Variation and Language
Attitudes in Mannheim-Neckarau. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag.
Dzahene-Quarshie, J. (2010). “English in Contact
with Swahili: Enrichment or Threat?” Létünk,
4:55-74.
Fasold, R. (1987). The Sociolinguistics of Society.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Gower, H. R. (1952). “Swahili Borrowings from
English”. Africa: Journal of the
International African Institute, 22 (2):154-157.
Gumperz, J. J. and Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982).
“Introduction. Language and the
Communication of Social Identity”. Gumperz, J. J.
Language and Social Identity. UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Habwe, J. (2009). “The Role of Kiswahili in the
Integration of East Africa”. Journal of Pan
African Studies, 2(8):2-10.
Madsen, L. M. (2003). “Linguistic Power Wielding
and Manipulation Strategies in Group
Conversations Between Turkish-Danish
Children”. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian
Conference of Linguistics, 31(5):780 – 795.
Mazrui, A. M. and Mazrui, A. A. (1993).
“Dominant Languages in a Plural Society:
English and Kiswahili in Post-Colonial East
Africa”.
International Political Science Review, 14(3):275-292.
Mazrui, A. A. and Mazrui, A. M. (1995). Swahili
State and Society: The Political Economy of an African
language. Nairobi: East African Educational
Publishers.
Merrit, M. and Abdulaziz, M. M. (1985). “Swahili
as a National Language in East
Africa”. In Florian Coulmas (ed.) What Are National
Languages Good for? Educational Resources
Information Centre (ERIC), US Department
of Education. pp 1-33.
Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing Sociolinguistics.
London and New York: Routledge.
Moore, R. (2015). “Citizen Sociolinguistics: The
Return of the Repressed”. Tilburg Papers in
Culture Studies. Tilburg University. Paper 148.
Moshi, L. (2006). “The Globalized World
Languages: The Case of Kiswahili”. Selected
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African
Linguistics. Oloba F. Arasanyin and Michael A.
Pemberton (ed.): 166-175. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Mukuthuria, M. (2006). “Kiswahili and its
Expanding Roles of Development in East
Who is a Homosexual? Rhetoric and the Construction of Ugandan Gay in Selected Ugandan Op-Eds 27
Vol. 14, No. 2, Decemer 2020
African Cooperation: A Case Study of
Uganda”. Nordic Journal of African Studies,
15(2):154-165.
Mukuthuria, M. (2009). “Islam and the
Development of Kiswahili”. The Journal of Pan
African Studies, 2(8):36-45.
Mulokozi, M. M. (2002). “Kiswahili as a National
and International Language”. Institute of
Kiswahili Studies, University of Dar es Salaam:
www.helsinki.fi/hum/aakkl/documents/
kiswahili.pdf.
Mwaniki, M. (2010). “Language Management and
the East African Community”. Language
Matters: Studies in Languages of Africa, 4(2):260-
277.
Nelde, H. P. 1998. “Language Conflict”. In F.
Coulmas (ed.) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.
Blackwell Reference Online. DOI:
10.1111/b.9780631211938.1998. 00020.x
Nelde, H. P. (1994). “How to Avoid Language
Conflicts in Europe After 1994? Intercultural
Communication Studies, IV(2):1-17.
Nelde, H. P. (1987). “Language Contact Means
Language Conflict”. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 8(1-3):33-42.
Nyongani, D. (1995). “Languages Shift and
National Identity in Tanzania”. Ufahamu: A
Journal of African Studies, 23(2):71-92.
Pawlikova-Vilhanova, V. (1996). “Swahili and the
Dilemma of Uganda Language Policy”. In
Asian and African Studies, 5(2):158-170.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a Local Practice.
New York: Routledge.
Petzell, M. (2012). “The Linguistic Situation in
Tanzania”. Moderna sprak, 1:136 - 144.
Polome, C. E. (1967). Swahili Language Handbook.
Washington D.C: Centre for Applied
Linguistics.
Rymes, B. and Leone, A. R. (2014). “Citizen
Sociolinguistics: A New Media
Methodology for Understanding Language and
Social Life”. Working Papers in Educational
Linguistics, 29 (2):25-43.
Sankoff, G. 2001. “Linguistic Outcomes of
Language Contact”. In, Peter Trudgill, J.
Chambers, and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.),
Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell, 638-668.
Siemund, P. (2008). “Language contact:
Constraints and Common Paths of Contact
Induced Change”. In P. Siemund and N.
Kintana (eds) Language Contact and Contact
Languages, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3-11.
Shivachi, I. C. (1999). “A Case Study in Language
Contact: English, Kiswahili and Luhyia
Amongst the Luhyia People of Kenya”.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Cape
Town.
Thomason, S. (2001). Language Contact: An
Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. (1988). Language
Contact, Creolization and
Genetic Linguistics. Berkley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An Introduction to
Sociolinguistics. UK, USA, Austria: Blackwell
Publishing.
