There are a few studies conducted on the sociolinguistic analysis of languages in Zambia, particularly on practices, distribution and interaction (e.g. Moody 1985). A few of these studies have focused on the interaction between Zambian languages and English and a great deal of them were conducted in the 1980s before the collapse of the copper mining industry on the Copperbelt province which was the main source of Zambia’s revenue (Banda 2010). The majority of these studies focused on error analysis of isolated sentences in Zambian/English discourses. The other studies merely provided numerical data as to who speaks what and compared languages in terms of their dominance in various social domains. According to Banda
16
(2010) the only studies which moved away from this kind of approach were those by Moody (1985) and Chishimba (1985). Moody's study is referred to in subsequent sections of the chapter.
Some of the notable studies that have looked at the interaction of a Zambian language and English include Kashoki’s study on Town and rural Bemba. In his study on Town Bemba, Kashoki (1972) notes that Town Bemba is an urbanized version of rural Bemba. He illustrates how speakers of this variant stylistically incorporate foreign words or phrases in their speech in order to achieve special effects on their listeners, particularly to separate themselves from the rural or to enhance their social status among their audience. He contends that this mixing does not just include English but other African languages as well such as Nyanja and Kabanga (Fanagalo), a pidgin for the mining towns (at that time). In as much as his study does not go into exploring the meaning of multilingualism, his study illustrates the point that multilingualism is not a recent phenomenon in Zambia (cf. Banda 2009), especially in the urban cities, as people have been using it as a resource for communication and as a way for expressing and constructing different social identities (cf. Trudell 2009). This is supported by Spitulnik (1999) who states that Town Bemba expresses urban identities of various social groups of people from the low class to sophisticated business individuals and the upper-class university students. She further adds that the different registers that constitute Town Bemba such as street Town Bemba, an elite Town Bemba, a smooth Town Bemba and every day Town Bemba have strong links with the notions of modern urban life as opposed to the traditional village life. The point being made is that multilingualism has been a part of the lives of city people or indeed of different groups of people living and working together. In such scenarios, there is always need to communicate with one another. This need and demand for communication with other speech communities is what determines multilingualism (cf. Ouane 2009a, 2009b). Multilingualism is therefore a norm in such communities, as Banda (2009:108) argues: “…in multilingual contexts of Africa, people use linguistic repertoires rather than drawing on a singular monolingual system to communicate and to perform different identity options, including hybrid ones”. This is elaborated on in subsequent sections of the chapter.
17
In this regard, in their study, Banda and Bellonjengele (2010) demonstrate how Zambians stylistically (re)construct the linguistic representations to codify their multilingual and multicultural experiences and African identities through online based encounters. Using web- based data on current news stories in Zambia from different sites, they further show, how Zambians use the extended 'code' repertoire in the sense that include hybrid 'code' to perform social roles and identities (urban, rural, modern, hybrid) in changing multilingual discourses. They argue that the mixed 'codes', that include, English, urban and rural vernaculars reflect the 'code' repertoire available to a community of practice with which they use to construct multilingual discourses. The study further illustrates how Zambian speakers are able to tap into diverse cultural attributes by switching from rural/urban forms of Zambian languages and at the same time producing hybrid forms. Their study is particularly relevant to the current one in that it partially focuses on how Lusaka urbanite multilinguals are constantly using their linguistic representations to express their multilingual and multicultural experiences and identities in post- modern Zambia in various social settings in which they find themselves.
In another related study, Nkolola-Wakumelo (2010b) reports that there has been an emergence of different forms of communication by different social groups in Zambia as a result of a shift to urban vernaculars as opposed to rural ones. She particularly focuses on how “call boys” and mini-bus drivers have developed a form of communication as they interact amongst themselves. Her study provides further insights as to how a particular social group within multilingual Zambia creatively uses their linguistic resources to communicate and to provide them with an identity. Nkolola-Wakumelo (2010) further claims that this form of communication that has developed is more than code-switching and that it is in fact a hybrid form of language as it constitutes diverse elements from different sources which have a composite linguistic nature (cf. Moody 1985; Banda 2009, 2010). She adds that the discourse has appropriated lexical items from other languages whose orientation has been extended, reinvented, adapted or changed to assume varied meanings (see also Banda 2010). Her study is equally relevant to the current one in that it helps us appreciate the new dimensions that multilingualism in urban Lusaka is giving rise to, that of hybrid languages on one hand and new social identities on the other.
18
However, Nkolola-Wakumelo’s study focuses much on the types of lexicon used by "bus conductors" and min-bus drivers, their origin and their probable meanings and how these provide the interactants with a social identity. This current study examines data on casual/formal conversations from different social groups as well as data from different modes of communication in urban Lusaka in order to explore how language as localized social practice provides interactants with voice and agency in different social settings and how this in turn provides them a resource to negotiate role structure and hybrid social identities. Unlike Nkolola- Wakumelo’s, this study does not give preeminence to types of lexicon and their etymologies as they occur in their hybrid forms but rather it focuses on how these forms of language come about as people interact.
In addition to the changes in language use in conversations, Mambwe (2009) reports that multilingualism has triggered code-switching in song lyrics in popular music as well. He illustrates how musicians use this linguistic phenomenon to creatively compose their songs (cf. Banda 2011). Nevertheless, the focus of his study is on the role and the form that code switching takes in music. He particularly looks at the structure of the songs and the place where the code switches occur and as well as their particular roles. In as much as the study provides some insight as to how Lusaka speakers are taking advantage of their linguistic repertoire in using it in different social settings and modes, it does not go further to highlighting the different identities and social roles that language mixing in these songs enact and how the perceived identities in these songs are performed. The current study explores how language as social practice is being used as a resource to negotiate identities and how the resultant identities are represented in popular Zambian music. It furthermore seeks to highlight the various intercultural (local) references that are made in some Zambian music and how these provide a further illustration of how multilingualism helps us understand the social nature and role of language(s) spoken in Lusaka. These languages include Nyanja, Bemba and English.
19
There is no doubt that because of Zambia’s colonial past; English is one of the major elements in its multilingual landscape. The problem however is that English is mostly analysed from ‘centre’ norms rather than in localized contexts in which it is used by former colonial countries (cf. Banda 1996; Higgins 2009). In a recent study, Pennycook (2010:74) has also questioned this approach. He claimss that:
[r]ather than attempting to sort out the local from the derived - the constant comparison between the peripheral and metropolitan forms of English [or any language] we need to consider what language users do with English [language], how they understand its relationship to their own condition, and what new meanings are generated by its use.
In this regard, language and multilingualism are viewed as social practice (I elaborate on this below) in which people use sets of linguistic resources rather than single languages in meaning making in different social contexts. Therefore, in the Zambian case, in order to understand the nature of language and multilingualism and the actual language practices of the people, English should be one of the key elements in any study on multilingualism. This is because of the localized functions that the language has taken in the lives of the majority urbanites.
Pennycook’s argument is evident in Moody’s (1985) “Zambians Talking: Twenty Five English conversations”, which looks at how Zambians use English by considering natural conversations. Moody contends that because of the nature or ways in which English is being used in Zambia, it is close to becoming a vernacular in that it was once seen as being used in (low) domains and situations in which a Zambian language would have been exclusively used then than it is now. In a related study, Higgins (2009) describes the situation and use of English in Tanzania in a book aptly entitled English as a local language which is referred to in subsequent sections of the chapter. Moody (1985) further observes that the majority of Zambians have at least two ways of expressing themselves in their speech repertoire as they command more than one language. He further puts it that:
These Zambians possess two verbal repertoires…a compartmentalized one, in which the languages are kept as distinct in “isogloss bundles”, and a fluid one, in which
20
transitioning between adjoining codes in a single conversation are gradual, one moving into another (Moody 1985:40).
In addition, Moody (1985) contends that, the fact that two or more languages are used in the same conversation illustrates that these languages are not perceived by the speakers themselves as, at least in so far as the act of communication is concerned, different or distinct entities but, rather, as “constituent elements of one integrated system” (Moody 1985:41). However, it can be argued that the 'compartmentalization of languages' that Moody refers to above, in which the former involves keeping languages as distinct in “isogloss bundles” is now questionable in post- modern Lusaka. The latter appears to be the reality as the study will illustrate in subsequent chapters.
Moody further accentuates that the fact that there is an existence of different languages as codes within the same system advantages Zambian speakers as they are provided with a wider speech repertoire and greater meaning potential than would be available to them if they made use of only a single language. He observes that the speakers show themselves to be “flexible, subtle and creative conversationalists” (Moody 1985:179) in their ability to code-switch between languages, the rules for which are determined by the interaction itself (cf. Banda 2005). The study draws to a conclusion that Zambians are creatively using their linguistic diversity to their advantage rather than disadvantage by way of mixing them during their interactions. However, the issue in Moody's account lies in the manner he conceives language, that is, as a code. This is a view this study contestsas will be demonstrated in subsequent chapters of the thesis.
As has been pointed out, Moody's study was conducted in 1980s and analyzed casual conversations in selected domains of that time. Given the long time that has elapsed and the complexity of multilingual situation in Zambia today, the current study sets to explore further the recent discourses in view of rapid social transformation and technological advancement. Moreover, the study considers other semiotics not covered in Moody’s study. This is important because it provides new insights on the nature of language practices in urban Lusaka given
21
current global changes. In this regard, Banda and Bellonjengele (2010:109) state that, “…the new global dispensation, including the onset of information technology have…influenced the kind of interactions and the way Zambians use their multilingual repertoire.” This current study ventured into these ‘new forms’ of interactions in order to understand current language practices of Lusaka urbanites in light of the ever globalizing world triggered by technological development in communication and rapid demographic mobility.
Lutz and Kula’s (2008) study, provides some further insights as to how language has become an important ingredient to enacting national identity of Zambians. Their study specifically demonstrates how Zambia as a multilingual country has the majority of speakers who have more than one language in their linguistic repertoire for communication and for ethnic and linguistic identities (cf. Banda 2009). Lutz and Kula’s (2008) main point advanced is that the specific patterns of multilingualism in Zambia involving all the languages, to some varying extent, and with particular status of national languages as major regional languages (Bemba, English and Nyanja) are jointly constitutive of Zambia’s contemporary national identity. Lutz and Kula’s study equally offers some insights to the current study in that it also focuses on issues of identity and language. However, their view on language appears to be largely informed by formalist ideologies to language, a view that this current study problematizes (I elaborate more on this below). Apart from an example where musicians have been singled out as being among the people that deploy multilingualism as a resource; their study, probably because of its nature, does not provide concrete situations to demonstrate how linguistic resources in modern settings of Zambia are creatively exploited. In addition, the study does not show how multilinguals actively negotiate their identities through their linguistic practices, and thus suggesting that languages provide people with an identity as if it were fixed. In this study, identity will not be assumed a priori but rather the study seeks to understand ways in which people actively stylize these identities in different social contexts in the process of interacting with others through linguistic choices. In other words, the study sees identity as emanating from people’s interactions (see Blackledge & Creese 2010; Blackledge & Pavlenko 2004; Banda 2005; Dyer 2007; Johnstone 2008; Heller 2007). Nevertheless, in order to understand this kind of language theorizing, a brief
22
account on structrualist and poststructuralist perspectives to language. Later, the conceptualization of language as social practice is discussed.