LANGUAGE POLICIES IN KENYA
The colonist linguistic strategy in Kenya is significant, placing it into a thought that it impacted deeply on the post-colonial linguistic rule. Conflicting to the lengthy alleged theory that the settler administration aimed to encourage English linguistic in the settlement, the foreign linguistic strategy was at all times unclear and indecisive such that there were times that actions were introduced to endorse or discourage its studying. Conversely, such rejection unintentionally offered an incitement for Kenyans to study English as they were aware of the fact that it was the opening line for white collar works (Mazrui, 65). While hardly a section of the Kenyan inhabitants can sufficiently practice English, it continues as the honored formal linguistic and the channel of training in the learning organization, unlike Kiswahili, the co-official linguistic. . Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Post-Colonial Linguistic Policy
When Kenya achieved self-governance in 1963, English was confirmed the formal linguistic. It was to be exercised in each vital administrative segment, schooling included. Furthermore, those who secured the wheel of governance after the colonialists were generated by the settler teaching scheme and in the situations, there was a great probability that they would continue neo-colonialism, instead of aid to generate amendment. Regardless of this, there were epistemological and planned changes in outline of investigation commands which were transmitted out so as to notify the linguistic rule, although the execution of endorsements from such errands has been monotonous. Such events were mostly adapted to schooling. In 1964, the Kenya Learning Committee launched a study to ascertain the welfares of the residents with respect to linguistic usage (Ogechi, 335). The discoveries showed that nearly everyone desired a trilingual tackle to teach. The native speech was favored for spoken interaction, particularly in countryside parts, whereas Kiswahili and English were favored for teaching from lower class to the college. Kiswahili was particularly preferred in schooling for reasons of state and local union. Additionally, Kiswahili was perceived as the suitable linguistic for the Pan-Africanism vision. On the other hand, unlike English, the linguistic was not secured in to the institute syllabus, and for a prolonged period, it continued as a noncompulsory topic. In 1964, the Ominde Committee disclosed that a lot of Kenyans were in approval of English as the channel of lessons from the start grade in primary level to the college. The Committee tossed its burden behind English linguistic disagreeing that it would advance knowledge in each topic by guaranteeing easy evolutions from vernaculars, and be obliged to its core sources. English was thus familiarized in learners’ sessions in primary level over the New Primary Approach, in which its education was severely highlighted. The duty as well stressed the usage of native language and Kiswahili in the schooling structure, at diverse stages and areas.
In 1967, The Kenya Institute of Education began publishing manuscripts in numerous local languages, Kiswahili inclusive; for usage in primary level. In the similar time, Kiswahili was marked the linguistic of Adult Education together with the mother language. On the other hand, in metropolitan zones, Kiswahili was to be exercised singularly. However, English sovereignty in the Kenya learning arrangement was established after the Gachathi Commission in 1976, which suggested that the language becomes the linguistic of teaching from the fourth rank in primary level, to the campus. Although the Authority as well confirmed Kiswahili a significant topic in primary and secondary programs, the linguistic obtained lesser standing when related with English in the institute program. Even though English was allocated eight to ten intervals out of the forty times weekly, Kiswahili was assigned three hours. In 1981, the Mackay Committee suggested eight years of primary level, four years of secondary level and four years of campus learning (Githiora, 250). It approved that English remains the linguistic of teaching, whereas Kiswahili was made an essential topic in both primary and secondary learning. This strategy was trailed by the invention of Kiswahili accounts to meet the improved requirements of scholars and educators. The Mackay Committee further recommended that the mother language be exercised in lower classes of primary level, in parts where this was achievable.
Entrenchment of English Dominion
On the expression worth, the schooling of English in the Kenya learning scheme was a benefit in the logic that the channel was by this time a globe linguistic that enabled interaction with the external domain. Though, its educating to the Kenyan scholars was at an expense. In certain institutes, particularly in countryside Kenya, the native language was prohibited, apart from in the first three grades of primary training, in exceptional circumstances. Ngugi grieves on his horrible encounter in the primary level. He says: Like so one of the greatest degrading incidents was to be found talking Kikuyu in the locality of the institute. The offender was assigned physical mistreatment, three to five hits of the stick on naked backsides or was compelled to keep a metallic dish over the neck with writings for instance I AM STUPID. Occasionally the offenders were penalized cash that they might barely manage to pay for (Ngugi, 1). While bodily penalty has been eliminated in Kenyan institutes, punishment is still meted out to scholars who are found talking native speeches in several institutes. Ngugi similarly proves that the foreign language defeat of African academics has crushed depressingly on them. He maintains that they start mocking their state tongues steering to separation. By quoting circumstances in universities and schools where Kenyan tongues were related with bad traits of disgrace, underdevelopment, penalty and backwardness; he utters that institute leavers have been classifying with hate for their persons, their ethnicity and tongues which had got them disgrace and annoyance in their antiquity of education. Hate for one’s mother language is a great danger to multilingualism, particularly to the extent that African tongues are involved. Ngugi remarks on this ethnic separation: We have previously grasped what any foreign scheme executes: inflict its language on the topic battles, and then demote the language speeches of the persons. By doing so, they compel the acquirement of their language a rank sign; anybody who understands it starts to hate the laborer majority and their fierce languages. By obtaining the notion practices and the standards of his embraced language, he turns into estranged from the standards of his native language, or from the linguistic of the crowds.
Whereas all this is transpiring, there is a weighty investing in English by the Kenyan and British administrations. This has particularly occurred when the dropping values of English have been recorded in advanced organizations of education or in nationwide inspections. The outcome has been the developing of English reign at the expenditure of other Kenyan tongues. Ogola asserts that the sociolinguistic state in Kenya is triglossic in the subsequent command: English is highest of the level as the authorized linguistic; Kiswahili is in the central of the status as the co-official linguistic and the native language, while at the source are the native tongues. The majority of Kenyan tongues has no transcribed significant, have not ever been regulated and have no orthography. They similarly have a restricted number of presenters, and are less applied in the broadcasting or in poetry inscription. The tongues that are mostly exercised by the majority of the inhabitants are offered a tiny shrift to the benefit of English linguistic which is just talked by the selected. Just like Kiswahili the state linguistic of Kenya, English definitely works as a language amongst individuals who talk diverse African tongues, and who can exercise it. This is a bonus considering that there is a diversity of over forty cultural tongues, which are usually thought interference in inter-ethnic interaction. On the other hand, as has previously been stated, English is divisionary in that it generates a break amongst the best and the crowds. It has already been detected that English, which is hardly recognized by 25percent of the over 35 million Kenyans, remains the authorized linguistic, and is exercised in most of the certified territory. There has been no severe platform to make it free, as a means of connecting the break amid the privileged and the crowds. It lasts to be applied for exclusion drives, particularly in the majority of the certified area. Yet, the linguistic strategy is dangerous in East Africa in the opinion of two aims: National incorporation and social incorporation. In the light of this, it is deducible that there is a difficulty of integration in Kenya as far as linguistic is involved. English can promote state union, but cannot reinforce public incorporation, as Kiswahili.
Intervention and Contestation of Language Supremacy
In the rise of English domination in Kenya, there is experiential proof that persons have not just assented in the state, but have operated on it. They have arbitrated and disputed contrary to language sovereignty in several methods, although at non-official stages. On the other hand, this response has mostly been encountered with rejection by the allies of language authority. For instance, numerous styles of intercession and contestation are accused of the deteriorating levels of English and Kiswahili in the state. By acquiring this track, several academics lose vision of the challenge amongst the customary linguistic, native tongues, and numerous speeches. Numerous means have been set up to challenge the English domination in Kenya (Scotton, 26).
Conclusion
This thesis has concentrated on the query of language domination in Kenya, mostly by exercising English. It has established that English, and to some degree Kiswahili, has been operated to spread control of the crowds by the privileged in foreign and post-colonial Kenya. The essay has displayed how English education was manipulated in the foreign period to guarantee that Kenyans do not once turn into too learned to do unskilled works, thus offering motivation for the study it as they previously understood that it was a qualification for white-collar occupations and the high community division in civilization. It has similarly been established how English was endorsed after the second World War at the expenditure of African tongues, mostly to examine African patriotism, which had increased dramatically in the fight for self-government (Kembo, 248). The thesis has revealed that English was exercised to generate a higher rank of some Africans who were slightly suitable to the colonialists, and on whose accepts the successively of the administration in post sovereign Kenya was put off. With reference to language domination, the essay has claimed that those who presumed control after the collapse of colonization affected power over English as a way of self-differentiation with the crowds who could not exercise it. It has been emphasized that this state has not altered much in modern Kenya as English endures as a cause of segregation amongst the selected and the crowds. While there have been efforts to emphasize and withstand this domination, the essay has stated that a lot of Kenyans have only not continued inactive, in the opinion of the point that they have arbitrated and disputed it. This has been accomplished in repeal whereby efforts have been prepared to declare African tongues, Kiswahili inclusive, over the inscription, plus over the appropriation of Kiswahili and English in language combination and substituting to match the natural conditions. It has as well been revealed that there has been the assumption of central and local tongues to generate idioms like Sheng and English, which are, however, lowered upon by supporters of the ordinary tongues. It has been said that intercession and contestation amongst native tongues and the hegemonic ones remains and is destined to substitute other language effects.
Work Cited
Abdulaziz, M., and Osinde K. (1997). Sheng and English in Nairobi. International Journal of the
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. & Tiffin, H. (1989). The Empire Writes Back. London: Routledge.
Bamgbose, A. (1999). Language and Exclusion – The Consequences of Language Policies in
Africa. London: Transaction Publishers.
Camitta, M. (1993). “Vernacular Writing: varieties of literacy among Philadelphia high school
students.” In Street, B. (ed.) Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, 228-246.
Gorman, T.P. (1974). “The Development of Language Policy in Kenya with Particular Reference
to Education System:” In Whiteley, W.H. (Ed.) Language in Kenya. Nairobi: Oxford University
Press, 397-446.
Griffler, B. J. (2002). World English. A Study of its Development. Cleveland: Multilingual
Matters.
Jean- Calvet, J. (2000). “Users Are Choosers.” The UNESCO Courier – April 2000. Paris:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. No.4-2000-OPI 99-590A, 35-
36.
King’ei, K. and Kobia, J. (2007). Lugha Kama Kitambulisho: Changamoto ya Sheng Nchini
Kenya.” Nordic Journal of African Studies 16(3): 320-332
Mazrui, A.A. & Mazrui, A.M (1998). The Power of Babel. Oxford, England: James Currey.
Mazrui, A.A. & Mazrui, A.M (1996). “A tale of two Englishes: The imperial language in the
post-colonial Kenya and Uganda. In: Fishman, J. Conrad, A. & Lopez, A.L. (eds.) Post Imperial
English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 271-302.
Mazrui, A.A. & Mazrui, A.M. (1995). Swahili State and Society. Nairobi: East African
Educational Publishers.
Mbaabu, I. & Nzuga, K. (2003). Sheng- English Dictionary-Deciphering East Africa’s
Underworld Langauge. DaresSalaam: TUKI, i-xiv.
Momanyi, C. (2009). “The Effects of ‘Sheng’ in the Teaching of Kiswahili in Kenyan Schools.”
The Journal of Pan African Studies 2(8): 127-138.
Ngugi, T. (1986). Decolonising the Mind. Nairobi: Heinemann.
Ngugi, T. (1978). Homecoming. London: Heinemann.
Njoroge, K. (1991). “Multilingualism and Some of its Implications for Language Policy and
Practices in Kenya.” In Legere, K. (ed.) The Role of Language in Literacy Programmes with
Special Reference to Kiswahili (249-269). Bonn: German Foundation for International
Development (DSE).
Ogechi, N. and Ogechi, E. (2002). “Educational Publishing in African Languages, With a Focus
on Swahili in Kenya.” In Nordic Journal of African Studies II (2): 167-184.
Ogechi, N. (2005). On Lexicalization in Sheng. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 14(3): 334–
335.
Pardoe, S. (2000). “Respect and the Pursuit of ‘Symmetry’ in Researching Literacy and Student
Writing.” In Barton, D., Halmiton, M. & Ivanic, R. (eds.) Situated Literacies-Reading and
Writing in Context. London: Routledge, 149-166.
Mule, Lucy. “Indigenous languages in the school curriculum: What happened to Kiswahili in Kenya.” What is indigenous knowledge (1999): 227-242.
Eastman, Carol M. “Tourism in Kenya and the marginalization of Swahili.” Annals of Tourism Research 22.1 (1995): 172-185.
Schmied, Josef, and Rajend Mesthrie. “East African English (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania): phonology.” Varieties of English 4 (2008): 150-63.
Zuengler, Jane. “English, Swahili, or other languages? The relationship of educational development goals to language of instruction in Kenya and Tanzania.” Language of inequality 36 (1985): 241.
Momanyi, Clara. “The Effects of’Sheng’in the Teaching of Kiswahili in Kenyan Schools.” Journal of Pan African Studies (2009).
Bunyi, Grace W. “Language in education in Kenyan schools.” Bilingual Education. Springer, Dordrecht, 1997. 33-43.
Timammy, Rayya, and Jane Akinyi Ngala Oduor. “The treatment of Kiswahili in Kenya’s education system.” Reports of the Republic of Kenya (2010): 1.
Mazrui, Alamin M. “Shakespeare in Africa: between English and Swahili literature.” Research in African literatures 27.1 (1996): 64-79.
Mazrui, Ali AlʼAmin, and Alamin M. Mazrui. Swahili state and society: The political economy of an African language. East African Publishers, 1995.
Iraki, Frederick Kang’ethe. “Language and political economy: A historical perspective on Kenya.” Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa 1.2 (2009): 229-243.
Ojwang, Benson. “Political and sociolinguistic obstacles to the expanded functions of Kiswahili in Kenya.” Language Matters 42.2 (2011): 231-247.
Ogechi, Nathan Oyori. “Publishing in Kiswahili and indigenous languages for enhanced adult literacy in Kenya.” AFRICAN RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION (2002): 19-34.
Bunyi, Grace. “Language classroom practices in Kenya.” Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (2005): 133-154.
Harries, Lyndon. “The nationalization of Swahili in Kenya.” Language in Society 5.2 (1976): 153-164.
Ogechi, Nathan Oyori. “On language rights in Kenya.” Nordic Journal of African Studies 12.3 (2003): 19-19.
Mazrui, Alamin M., and Ali A. Mazrui. “Dominant languages in a plural society: English and Kiswahili in post-colonial East Africa.” International Political Science Review 14.3 (1993): 275-292.
Mazrui, Alamin. “Language and education in Kenya: Between the colonial legacy and the new constitutional order.” Language Policies in Education. Routledge, 2012. 151-167.
Oyori Ogechi, Nathan. “The teaching of Kiswahili in Kenyan universities with emphasis on historiography.” Les Cahiers d’Afrique de l’Est/The East African Review 40 (2008): 151-165.
Kibui, Agnes W. “Language policy in Kenya and the New Constitution for Vision 2030.” International Journal of Educational Science and Research 4.5 (2014): 89-98.
ORO, MUSIMBI RA KANY. “The politics of the English language in Kenya and Tanzania.” English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (1991): 402.
Musau, Paul M. “The Liberalization of the Mass Media in Africa and its Impact on Indigenous Languages: The Case of Kiswahili in Kenya’.” Swahili Forum VI. 1999.
Githiora, Chege. “Kenya: Language and the search for a coherent national identity.” Language and national identity in Africa (2008): 235-251.
Michieka, Martha Moraa. “English in Kenya: A sociolinguistic profile.” World Englishes 24.2 (2005): 173-186.
Nabea, Wendo. “Language Policy in Kenya: Negotiation with Hegemony.” Journal of Pan African Studies 3.1 (2009).
Mbugua, Zachariah Kariuki, et al. “Factors contributing to poor performance in Kenya certificate of primary education in public day primary schools in Mwimbi Division, Maara District, Kenya.” (2012).
Musau, Paul M. “Linguistic human rights in Africa: Challenges and prospects for indigenous languages in Kenya.” Language culture and curriculum 16.2 (2003): 155-164.
Scotton, James F. “The Press in Kenya a Decade after Independence; Patterns of Readership and Ownership.” Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands) 21.1 (1975): 19-33.
Kang’ethe-Iraki, Frederick. “Cognitive efficiency: the Sheng phenomenon in Kenya.” Pragmatics 14.1 (2004): 55-68.
Khejeri, Mary. “Teachers’ attitudes towards the use of mother tongue as a language of instruction in lower primary schools in Hamisi District, Kenya.” International journal of Humanities and social science 4.1 (2014): 75-85.
Sure, Kembo. “Language functions and language attitudes in Kenya.” English World-Wide 12.2 (1991): 245-260.
Sociology of Language, 125: 1-21.