Conklin and Lourie (1983) also focussed on the immigrant situation in the United States, and developed a model to explain factors promoting language maintenance and shift relevant to the contemporary urban situation. The purpose of their work was to inform, educators, the general public and policy makers about issues related to language. The difference between the previous model and that of Conklin and Lourie (1983) is that the latter considered all factors to be ambiguous. Conklin and Lourie (1983) differentiated between factors promoting language maintenance and factors promoting language shift, which they divided into three categories or clusters, (i) political, social and demographic factors; (ii) cultural factors and (iii) linguistic factors.
Under the first cluster of factors, Conklin and Lourie (1983) explain that:
(a) Demographics focus on where the speech community is concentrated. They argue that if the majority of the members of the speech community live in the same area, then this encourages language maintenance. If the members are scattered in different areas, then the possibility of language maintenance is low. So the fact that the Zanzibari community lived together in Kings Rest in the Bluff and then after the Group Areas Act were concentrated in Chatsworth encouraged cultural and language maintenance of the community.
73 (b) Time of migration from the homeland is a relevant factor as it considers how recent the immigration happened and whether it is ongoing. This is relevant because new immigrants from the same group would ensure continued communication in the language of the homeland, thus promoting language maintenance. While the community of freed slaves were brought to Natal in the late 19th century, they remained in contact with the Makhuwa community in Mozambique through individuals who came as labour migrants or religious leaders. Since 1994 there has been an increase in the number of new immigrants to the community. This has also brought some challenges. An example is that some of the new immigrants, some who are in the country illegally or because of the xenophobic attacks want to assimilate into society quickly. They have opted to learn and speak isiZulu. This will be discussed further in chapter five.
(c) The geographical proximity to the homeland focuses on ease with which the community can travel to the homeland. This is linked to the social and economic mobility, since people must be able to afford to travel back and forth and retain social links in both territories. The post 1994 period created opportunities for cultural exchange between the Zanzibari community in Chatsworth, Durban and the Makhuwa community in Mozambique. This has been in the form of travel to Mozambique (Maputo, Ilha de Mozambique, Nampula Province and so on), hosting of events like the Ziyara (Moulood-un-Nabi), and cultural events.
(d) The permanence of residence is regarded as a contributing factor to language maintenance or language shift. If immigrants are living in a particular area for a short period of time, with the intention of returning to their country, then the possibility of language shift is low. However, if the move is permanent then the immigrants have to learn the dominant language of the host country. This factor is not ‘clear cut’ when reflecting on the Zanzibari community. While their move to Natal was permanent, they were under the impression that one day they will return to their homeland. So while the younger generations in Kings Rest learnt the dominant language for school, employment, Emakhuwa was still the dominant language in the community and household.
74 (e) The concentration in a particular occupation. If this is high it creates the opportunity for the language to be maintained and if low leads to language shift (Clyne 2003). An example is the minority community being studied, where a large number of Makhuwa people worked in the clothing factories and using Emakhuwa in the workplace to communicate with each other. This will be discussed further in chapter five.
(f) Social and economic mobility, which when high leads to language shift and when low encourages language maintenance. Before 1994 very few people left the Zanzibari community to live in other areas in Durban or moved to Johannesburg or Cape Town. Some were forcefully removed from the community because of the Group Areas Act. Since 1994 more individuals left the community but their families remained in the community.
(g) Educational level of the immigrant group is a factor because if the education level is high, then it language shift is possible. Alternatively, if the education level is low, it ensures maintenance.
(h) Ethnic group identity if high is positive for language maintenance and if low, can lead to language shift. The Zanzibari community take pride in their Makhuwa ethnic identity and this has helped in maintaining their culture and language.
The second cluster of factors are; cultural factors and is divided into three sub-categories.
(a) The existence of community language institutions is a factor as these are likely to encourage language maintenance. It must be noted that within the community of study, there are no community language institutions. Instead cultural events, like the
Nimwari ceremonies are used to promote culture and language.
(b) Whether or not religious and/or cultural ceremonies require command of the community language is important because the use of the community language in these domains could help language maintenance. The use of host country’s language in these domains may be a sign that language shift is taking place. The former is evident in the Zanzibari community, as mentioned above.
75 (c) The emotional attachment to the community language as a defining characteristic of ethnicity is a relevant factor. When the emotional attachment is positive it leads to language maintenance (Clyne 2003). There was and still is an emotional attachment to Emakhuwa in the community and this was evident in the sense of pride the people (both young and old) expressed when speaking about their language.
The linguistic factors focus on the status of the language and concerns:
(a) Whether the community language is the standard written variety and if it is, this would promote language maintenance. If the community language is a minor, non- standard and/or unwritten variety, this would likely contribute to language shift. The Makhuwa community is unique in this sense as it has managed to pass down the culture and language of the community for over a century through the oral tradition.
(b) Whether the community language uses Latin script, which would be positive for the maintenance of the language in an environment that uses the Latin script (e.g. Western Europe). However, this may not always be the case and may depend on the community and other factors that contribute to maintenance or shift, as evident in Ahmed Othman’s research discussed below.
(c) The international status of the community language is important to language maintenance or shift. The status of a language could also influence the attitude of the community to their language, so if its international status is high then there is a strong possibility for language maintenance and if low, it may lead to language shift.
(d) Whether the speakers are literate in the community language and if community language literacy is used to communicate within the community and with the homeland, helps language maintenance.
(e) Some tolerance and flexibility for loanwords can contribute to the maintenance or shift of the community language.
76 Othman (2006) in his study of the Arab community in Manchester highlighted that this community fulfilled the requirements for maintenance in the different clusters of Conklin and Lourie’s Model. It has a high concentration of Arabs in the area; it has established many Arabic schools in which the language is learnt; and it holds functions like prayers and the reading of the Quran in Arabic17. All these contribute to language maintenance according to the first and second cluster. Othman (2006:15) observes further that in the case of his informants, the community spoken language is a non-standard variety, while the community’s written language is the Standard Arabic. Furthermore, that Arabic does not use the Latin script and the distance from the dominant language could be a challenge for the maintenance of the language.
According to the factors in the second and third clusters of Conklin and Lourie’s Model, the minority Zanzibari community should have shifted to the dominant language. No formal language institutions have existed in the Zanzibari community, however Emakhuwa was practiced and used at cultural and religious ceremonies which about 15 years ago were frequent events which brought members of the community together. Emakhuwa as mentioned in chapter one and above is a spoken language in the community. An example of the written form of Emakhuwa existed in a form of an old bible owned by Salim, an Elder in the community. This has been seen by a select few. Emakhuwa does not have international status. However, like in the case of Arabic, the strong emotional attachment to the home language promoted its maintenance.