Rentabilidad Económica

In order to in order to establish which people are in contact with the Lusamia speakers, I asked the participants in the interviews with who they interact with on a daily, weekly, monthly and/or annual basis. I did this in order to establish the social networks that the Samia people have because, according to Milroy (1980), the different networks that speakers engage in contribute to the construction of [linguistic] identities. From the interview data, I noted that the people that are in contact with the Samia on the Ugandan side of the border differ from those on the Kenyan side. (To illustrate: One Kenyan participant said he met the Jaluo, Gikuyu, Kamba, Babukusu and Masai, whereas one Ugandan participant said she met the Bagisu, Basoga, Itesots and Jopadholas.) My observation is in line with Quane's (2009) assertion that different multilingual settings manifest different linguistic repertoires and thus impose different demands on the people who speak the different languages. These different linguistic manifestations in the two Samia communities have implications for the Samia language. It is for this reason that the participants that I interviewed revealed that 90% of the differences between the Lusamia spoken in Uganda and that spoken in Kenya are brought about by this varied contact. For instance, from my observations and the interview data, it became clear that the Lusamia of Uganda shows influence from Luganda while the Lusamia of Kenya is influenced by Swahili. For illustration, consider the following examples from the interviews. Some of these were presented in Chapter 5; they are reanalysed here.

When I asked a Ugandan interview participant what activities she carried out either daily or during the course of a typical week, her response was as follows:

Nimaho, ndakeniyaho abeho nabecha, olundi ndacha muhatale

I dig, I visit relatives, friends, and sometimes I go to the market.

(IITUG25) I then asked her if she crosses the border and, if she does, what she goes to do in Kenya, upon which she said she does cross the border, and below is what she goes to do:

Ninja mba njire okulayo koti amafuta ketara, engubo ch‟abaana bayere, OBA.

144

When I go across the border, I go to buy some paraffin, clothes for babies or [Luganda] to buy other things.

(IITUG25) In the first example above, there is evidence that Samia speakers are in contact with speakers of other languages. The participant reports that she goes to the market [where as I noted earlier, there are a number of people from different linguistic backgrounds who go there]. In the second example above, influence of Luganda on Lusamia is manifested. A Luganda word,

OBA ‗or‘, is used by the Lusamia speaker. The above incidence of a Samia using a Luganda

word while speaking Lusamia is evidence that the contact of Lusamia speakers with speakers of other languages has an influence on Lusamia as a language.

Considering the speakers of Lusamia on the Kenyan side of the border, I noted use of some Swahili when they speak Lusamia. For instance, I asked a participant in the interviews to tell me about some of the cultural ceremonies that are performed among the Samia in Kenya. Below is his response:

Waliwo KAMA [Swahili word for ‗like‘] ohuhwa, ARUSI [Swahili word for ‗wedding‘] nende engannyo.

There is like [Swahili] paying dowry, weddings [Swahili] and last funeral rites44. (IITKE15)

I then asked the same Kenyan respondent if the cultural ceremonies in his area were the same as those performed on the Ugandan side of the border. Below is his response:

TAFAWUTI [Swahili word for ‗difference‘] yiwumawo There is no difference [Swahili]

(IITKE15) Similar to the Ugandan side of the border, Lusamia in Kenya is influenced by other languages; however, on the Kenyan side of the border, the influence comes from Swahili. In the data presented above, the interview participant uses the Swahili words KAMA for ‗like‘, ARUSI for ‗weddings‘ and TAFAWUTI for ‗difference‘. This thus further affirms the notion of

indexicality as stated by Bucholtz and Hall (2004: 378) that ―one entity or event points to the

44

In the Samia culture, when someone passes away, s/he will be buried after two or three days. After 40 days, the Samia hold what is referred to as ―last funeral rites‖ where the main heir is declared. It is a time to celebrate the departed, so there is a lot of eating and dancing.

145

other‖. In the above excerpt (IITKE15), the use of the Swahili words is indexical of a Kenyan Samia. In the same regard, as seen in excerpt IITUG25, the use of Luganda words like ‗OBA‟

while speaking Lusamia is indexical of a Ugandan Samia.

After ascertaining that the Lusamia speakers are frequently in contact with speakers of other languages, I was interested in finding out what languages the Samia speak when they get in contact with those speakers. 95% of the respondents from Kenya said they spoke Swahili, the remainder said when they have crossed the border to Uganda, they try to speak Luganda, but they do not know it very well, so they resort to English in case the people understand English. In fact, one respondent said that he feels excluded when he is on the Ugandan side of the border and meets people who do not speak Lusamia, Swahili or English. This illustrates Lefebvre's (1991) argument about different social spaces including or excluding speakers of different languages. Also, this is a situation in which language can be used to exclude some people and include others. Blommaert et al. (2005) are in support of the above argument advanced by Lefebvre (1991) when they point out that different languages play different roles in the different spaces in which they are used. The argument advanced here is that speakers need to be aware of which languages are to be used in (a) particular situation(s). For instance, in the example of the Samia from the Kenyan side of the border, he needed to be aware that he was crossing to Uganda where the language of wider communication is Luganda and a lack of knowledge of this language could mean exclusion. This particular speaker may have various linguistic resources, but this particular environment (the Ugandan side of the border) demands a linguistic resource (Luganda) that the speaker does not have.

Before making conclusions based on what I had heard from the Samia on the Kenyan side of the border, I asked those on the Ugandan side of the border which language they spoke with the people who did not speak either Lusamia or Swahili. They said they resort to English but since it is only the elite who speak English and there are few in this rural community (as noted earlier), this sometimes excludes some speakers from certain interactions, thus hindering communication.

To further affirm the arguments that I and authors like Blommaert et al. (2005) and Lefebvre (1991) are putting forward, I observe that the Samia participants from the Kenyan side of the border uses Swahili because it is the national language and therefore lingua franca in Kenya (Attortney General, 2010; Kibui, 2014; Ogechi, 2003). This status quo is different when it comes to the Ugandan side of the border because the language policy here is different.

146

English is the official language whereas Luganda is the lingua franca for most of the Ugandans (regardless of which of the different Ugandan languages they speak) (Kwesiga, 1994; Kyeyune, 2003; Nakayiza, 2013; Namyalo and Nakayiza, 2015). Based on the language policy of Uganda referred to above, the Ugandan respondent has to make a choice to speak Luganda with those who understand the language and English with those she knows do not speak Luganda.

As stated earlier, this study used triangulation in data collection so as to complement data from one data collection method with data from another. I thus followed up the interviews with my own observations in two main markets, one in Uganda and one in Kenya (both in the towns of Busia). I wanted to find out what languages are generally spoken here (as a follow up on what the interview participants had told me). Below is what I observed:

In the Kenyan market, I heard several languages being spoken. These included but were not limited to Lusamia, Swahili, Lusoga, Lugisu, Jaluo, Kikuyu, Luganda and Lumataki. I could identify most of them; those that I couldn‘t, I asked my Kenyan informant (who accompanied me to the markets) to identify. When I visited the Ugandan market, I heard, amongst others, Luganda, English, Lusamia, Swahili, Lusoga, Lugisu, Jopadhola, and Karimojong.

(OTMKE1) The above observation confirms that speakers of Samia are constantly in contact with speakers of other languages both within and outside their communities, including across the border. I was not surprised to hear Ugandan languages being spoken in the Kenyan market because I had learnt from the interviews that I had earlier carried out that the Samia go to the Kenyan market to trade. So when the Ugandans meet in this market, they speak their Ugandan languages but have to switch to either Swahili or Lusamia depending on the client or seller.45 If a Kenyan is in the Ugandan market, Swahili and Lusamia will be the obvious languages, but if the client cannot speak Swahili or Lusamia, English may be used. A few Kenyans, especially those who trade in the markets, have however tried to learn Luganda.46

From the above observations, we see what Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004) pointed out about continuous negotiation of linguistic identities. Speakers of different languages often make

45

If the Ugandan is selling goods in the Kenyan market, she may not identify the native language of the buyer immediately, so she always uses Swahili first, then along the way, if they discover they are both from Uganda, they can speak Lusamia or any other Ugandan language that they have in common, as seen in section 5.1.

46

From the interviews and the observations that I made, there are fewer Kenyans in the Ugandan markets than Ugandans in the Kenyan market. This is because, as about 90% of the Ugandans interviewed said, goods in Kenya, including in the markets, are cheaper than those in Uganda.

147

choices of which language(s) to use in the varying situations they find themselves in. The above assertion is true for the Samia who interact with speakers of other languages. As a result of these interactions, the Lusamia speakers use different languages as the environment demands and, in so doing, constantly negotiate their linguistic identities. For instance, when the Lusamia speakers on the Kenyan side of the border meet speakers of other languages, like Kamba or Babukusu, who do not speak Lusamia, they adopt a common language: Swahili (on the Kenyan side of the border) and Luganda or English (on the Ugandan side of the border).

6.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I discussed interaction of language, space and identity. I focused on the changes in the linguistic behaviour of speakers as they move from one space to another; the different spaces place different linguistic demands on the speakers. According to Lefebvre (1991), spaces may either include or exclude people, depending on its linguistic demands. For instance, a participant on the Ugandan side of the border reported that he had been charged more money in a Kenyan hospital on the basis of being a Ugandan. This scenario shows how some spaces can exclude members who do not meet the requirements of that particular space.

Findings in this study revealed that as speakers move from one space to another, they fill these spaces with different language ideologies, beliefs and cultural practices. Therefore, what the speakers think of a particular place will determine what linguistic resources they employ there. The Lusamia speakers move from one space to another, not only within their communities but also across the border, and this places different demands on their identity construction. There are various reasons for the Samia crossing the border (whether to the Ugandan or to the Kenyan side). These reasons include trade, education, work, leisure, visiting relatives and friends, and attending cultural ceremonies. When they cross the border, they engage in different linguistic practices depending on the different domains such as home, market, shops, etc. which they enter. Since different linguistic environments require different linguistic resources (as stated by Blommaert et al., 2005), the notion of ‗truncated multilingualism‘ applies here, where different linguistic resources are used depending on the different language activities in which the speakers engage. The above assertion is not only true for interactions involving the Samia, but also applies to the language used in public space. Different languages are used in public space depending on who the target audience is. But given the fact that the Samia community is multilingual, most of the linguistic landscape observed confirmed what I had been told by the respondents about different languages being

148

spoken in the Samia community, especially because of contact of the Samia with speakers of other languages.

What I conclude from the deliberations in this chapter is that the border is sometimes absent (as seen by the free movement) and at other times is a reality (as seen from the unfair treatment reported by some respondents from the Ugandan side of the border). However, beyond the boundary, there are various linguistic practices; the border is an avenue for developing social networks (as Brambilla, 2007 observes). As a result of this status of the border, issues of identity construction are key for the people constantly traversing the border. Therefore, the border constitutes the identity of the Samia as they interact with various people across the border and engage in different linguistic practices. As a result, the Samia are constantly negotiating different linguistic identities as they engage in various activities along and across the border.

149

CHAPTER SEVEN

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND

POINTERS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH