Consider also the following data in which large chunks of Standard language with very few or no non-standard bits have been used:
Extract 4 (Linked to extract 2) Turn speaker dialogue
3 Jack: Iyai even here we have got the same raw materials which we can use to make
this type of a coffin 'not at all/no'
In the above extract, Jack uses Standard bits of English throughout the utterance with the exception of the Nyanja bit iyai 'not at all/no' as in: even here we have got the same raw
materials which we can use to make this type of a coffin. He does this as if everyone else
including himself in the conversation had been using the same form and yet not. This suggests that speakers assume that even the hearer has a wide array of linguistic options from which they may choose to use bits and pieces of language in diverse ways in order to form meaningful discourses with which to communicate in different informal social contexts (cf. Banda 2005; 2009). Such patterns are pervasive in almost all informal social contexts of language use in Lusaka. For example, they can also be noticed in the following extract.
Extract 5 (Linked to extract 3) Turn Speaker Dialogue
8 TK: I am giving you (.) am giving you details 9 MJ: Oh oh (.) what are you giving?
10 TK: Details (laughter)
11 SB: You mean how you travelled?
12 TK: No…not every detail of course.
123
In turns 8 to 12, TK, SB and MJ all draw on Standard bits from English to communicate with each other as if they have been using just one form of language but yet these have been used in the broader context of the discussion as in extract 3 in which a trend of combination of bits and pieces of language has been noted. This entails that, for speakers, the type or form of language to be used in informal contexts does not matter as all bits and pieces of language are treated as meaning making resources in their own right. However, it has to be pointed out that this exclusive use of standard bits of language only involved English bits in all the data considered, this could be attributed to the influence of formal English instruction as the sole medium of school instruction in the education sector in Zambia (see Moody 1985; Banda 1996). The data did not show exclusive use of standard bits and pieces from Bemba or Nyanja but instead these were mostly used as hybrid forms as in extracts 1, 2 and 3 in which different bits and pieces of language were combined as one. Nevertheless, what is emerging in the study is that the patterns of language use in the communication practices of Lusaka urbanites is highly unpredictable in terms of structural composition of the utterances and the positional occurrence of various bits and pieces of language available to speakers. As noted above, one stretch of discourse might have a combination of more different bits and pieces of language yet another might have few or indeed might use one standard form exclusively.
Even if the patterns of language use noticed above are seen to be unpredictable and may considerably vary from one individual to another, they are all meaningful to speakers in different contexts in which they occur. Such forms of language practices, in turn question the boundaries between standard and non-standard language forms which is discussed in chapter ten. In addition, questions were asked to a few participants from the focus group discussions on the nature of language they were using or had heard being used. See the comments from the extracts below.
124 Extract 6: [Interview with participant]
1. Question: Brown where you aware that you were using two ‘different languages’ in our
conversation?
2. Informant: What do you mean?
3. Question: I mean you used different languages in your conversation.
4. Informant: I was not aware until you mentioned them that there were two languages. For me I
thought it was only Nyanja.
5. Question: But do you consider the following to be Nyanja only? So coffin yamene ndiye
banacita import at 5 billion kwacha (approximately $ 2million)?
6. Informant: Ah I feel its Nyanja. 7. Question: Why do you think so?
8. Informant: Because I know its Nyanja…oh I see there is some English word import, at, billion.
Then I am not sure what to call this, may be a mixture.
9. Question: Will you then say you used two different languages at the same time? 10. Informant: No I can’t say that.
11. Question: Why?
12. Informant: Because the common language was Nyanja. I can’t use two different languages at
the same time, but may be through mixing them.
In the extract, Brown does not differentiate the languages being used in the conversation but rather sees it as simply Lusaka Nyanja in lines 4 and 6. However, he only realizes there is a combination of other languages when he is probed by the researcher in line 4. However, in as much as he succumbs to the researcher's probe, Brown denies the fact that he was using two languages at the same time which confirms that he sees these languages not as a system but as mere resources for making meaning. For him standard and non-standard, rural and urban forms of Bemba, Nyanja and English as used in the conversation are all considered as one. I should add that he does not only conceive them as such but also demonstrates it in his actual language practices.
125
Similar questions as those asked to Brown were asked to Teddy in order to see what he made of his language practices in the conversation above. Consider the extract below:
Extract 7: [Interview with participant]
1. Question: Teddy where you are aware that you used 'different languages' in our conversation? 2. Informant: Ni ciNyanja camene nasebenzesa. [I have used Nyanja]
3. Question: But there were traces of English?
4. Informant: Siningakambe ati nicizungu camene nasebenzesa. Ok kukamba zoona ni ciNyanja
cameneta sebenzesa. Because you can’t say ni cizungu ici or ni ciBemba. Kapena may be for a few words ce. [I can’t say it is English I have used. Ok to be frank it is Nyanja we have used.
You can’t say this was English or Bemba. May be for some words one….] 5. Question: so are you saying that this trend is only for the urban areas?
6. Informant: Hmmm let me think (about it)…aha iyai even in rural areas there may be a few
words which are English monga phone so, fertilizer, and so on. Even ciNyanja has words from other languages so yavuta kansi. […let me think …ah not really even in rural areas the language
spoken there may have a few traces of English words too such as phone, fertilizer and so on. Even Nyanja has words from other languages so it is now complicated]
Similar to Brown's responses, Teddy does not differentiate the languages drawn from his repertoire but sees them as simply Lusaka Nyanja. In this regard, Lusaka Nyanja is viewed as an amalgamated form constituting linguistic forms from multiple sources which are drawn upon in different contexts and in varying but unpredictable patterns.
In addition, extract 7 reveals something noteworthy, that, even when the questions were asked in one format, that is, English the interviewee opted to use what a linguist would view as a different format by drawing upon what is considered a different language in responding to the questions. This is so because for him, he does not see any difference between the language he is using and that of the interviewer as they are both conceived as part of the amalgamated form (cf. Moody 1985; Banda 2009).
126
Besides, in separate interviews with both Rick and Bob, similar sentiments as those expressed in extracts 9 and 10 by Teddy and Brown were given. They both contended that they did not see any difference between the languages used but rather saw them as Lusaka Nyanja although Teddy argued that such language mixing forms are a diluted form of Nyanja. However, his sentiment seems to be influenced by popular and dominant language ideologies in which 'pure' forms are the most preferred than the 'mixed' ones and yet the reality is the opposite. However, what is clear from the interviews is that Lusaka urban interactants are involved in the disinvention of languages as we know them through their actual language practices as well as their esoteric knowledge about language (cf. Makoni & Pennycook 2007). Moreover, interviews conducted with some musicians reveal similar results as below:
Extract 8: [Interview with musician A]
1. Question: In what language was this song sang? (Refering to a song produced and sang by the musician)
2. Response: It was sung in Bemba (urban).
3. Question: But there are traces of Nyanja and English. Would you say this is still Bemba? 4. Response: yes this is Bemba. This is how we speak urban Bemba. We might combine it with
other languages but it is still Bemba…may be town Bemba.
In the interview with musician A, it is equally clear that what is called Bemba by the speakers is different from what a linguist would call Bemba. For a linguist this would be viewed as an aberration (see Bailey 2007) or as a combination of 'languages' and not Bemba or simply a diluted form of Bemba whereas for speakers this is a language. Consider also the interview below:
127 Extract: 9 [Interview with musician B]
1. Question: In which language was this song sang?
2. Response: It was sang in ChiNyanja because that is the language I personally speak. I can't
speak Bemba.
3. Question: Why do you call it ChiNyanja?
4. Response: Because that is the language commonly spoken in Lusaka. This is Nyanja.
5. Question: But I can notice words which are not Nyanja like ring, finger and so on. Would you
say these are also Nyanja?
6. Response: oh oh no I didn’t' notice that. For me it was all Nyanja. Yes of course there may be
some words like that but that is the nature of Lusaka ChiNyanja. Mupezeka ka Chi Nyanja Nyanja so na kazungu zungu so kapena na ka Bemba so but ni Chi Nyanja. [That is the nature of
Lusaka Nyanja, there is a bit of Nyanja, a bit of English and may be a bit of Bemba but it is still Nyanja]
In the extract, even if the song the researcher refers to could be said to have been sang in what a linguist would consider a combination of different languages and their respective varieties, that is, a combination of both rural and urban Nyanja and standard/non-standard English, the musician still views this as simply Lusaka Nyanja in lines 2, 4 and 6. Thus, like others before him, he does not seem to differentiate the languages being used together but rather he sees them as simply one, and he refers to the scenario as the 'nature' of language in urban Lusaka in line 6. The 'nature' being that Lusaka urbanites including, himself, use language as amalgamated forms and do not conceive them as separate entities as they are known by linguists. This clearly shows that Lusaka urbanites are reinventing language into something different from what has been understood to be language which Makoni and Pennycook (2007) have aptly referred to as the disinvention of language. I discuss the notion of disinvention and reinvention of language in chapter ten.
Of mention, from the interviews, there appears to be a problem in the naming practices of languages. This problem is influenced by the ways in which language has been ideologically explained, that, it is an enumerable entity that bears a particular name (cf. Makoni & Pennycook
128
2007). For example, even if the informants' responses clearly provide us with insights about the nature of language, their responses in which they named their language are influenced by popular language ideologies which are a result of colonial practices in which languages were given names according to the ethnic groups that spoke them (see Makoni & Pennycook 2007; Stroud 2007). This in turn questions the naming practices of languages today.
The data is also showing that Lusaka urban speakers unconsciously use the different bits and pieces of language for different purposes which include, among others, blurring the socio- cultural boundaries between the rural and the urban social spaces in which are revealed diverse shared social values and experiences. Besides, and most importantly, these bits and pieces of language are used to stylize multiple social identities. The following sections consider these phenomena.