This study set out to investigate how speakers of cross-border languages like the Samia of Uganda and the Samia of Kenya negotiate their linguistic identities. Many a time, speakers of cross-border languages possess a number of linguistic options in their repertoire. From these, they need to choose the most appropriate linguistic resource(s) for a given communicative situation. In the wake of negotiating through different linguistic resources, the result is shifts in identities. This means that speakers of cross-border languages often have multiple identities. The study was guided by the postmodern and constructivist approaches that view language and identity as dynamic and continuously constructed (Bucholtz and Hall, 2004; Hall, 1996; Norton, 2010). The postmodernists and constructivists argue that speakers of different languages in multilingual settings are always in social interaction and, as a result, they engage in different social networks which pose different identity demands on them.
Most of the studies that I reviewed focused on the roles that cross-border languages play in different social, political and economic contexts. However, not much scholarly work has been done on the construction of linguistic identities, specifically by the Samia in both Uganda and Kenya. There was thus a need for a study to be carried out to fill this gap. The study was guided by three main questions. The questions and a summary of the answers to each question (i.e., a summary of the study‘s findings) are given below.
1. What perceptions and attitudes do the Samia in both Uganda and Kenya have towards their own languages and those of the neighboring communities?
The findings of the study reveal that the Samia in both Uganda and Kenya consider themselves to be one and the same people and view their languages as one and the same language. During the attendance of the annual Samia cultural event (esidialo)47
, these people sat together and talked like one people. Although the Kenyans spoke Lusamia with Swahili
47
150
words (Lusamia of Kenya) and the Ugandans spoke Lusamia with Luganda words (Lusamia of Uganda), they still understood each other.
There is however a sense in which the Samia of Uganda and the Samia of Kenya view the Lusamia spoken in their country to be somewhat (although not much) different to the Lusamia spoken on the other side of the border. This also holds for Samia identity.
The Lusamia speakers on either side of the border have positive attitudes towards the other languages that are spoken around them. For instance, many of them endeavour to learn the other languages around them, especially Swahili in Kenya and Luganda in Uganda. The Lusamia speakers believe that for one to be able to communicate in the Samia community (being aware that the community is multilingual), one had to learn another language in addition to Lusamia. Thus multilingualism is viewed as an advantage, and as a simple fact of life, not anything exceptional. In fact, the study revealed that the people who did not speak another language in addition to Lusamia had problems when they went to the market(s) or met people who did not speak Lusamia. Such people also felt excluded at some cultural ceremonies where the people concerned were educated (and thus spoke languages other than Lusamia) or there was an intermarriage marriage ceremony between a Samia and someone from another region. This meant that another language or other languages (languages other than Lusamia) were spoken at that ceremony.
A general conclusion is that the Samia on either side of the border realise that there is no ―all purpose‖ language in their communities (not Lusamia nor the national or official languages) have the status of ―all-purpose language‖ in the Samia community; rather all languages in their community are useful in different language domains.
The findings of the study further revealed that the Samia believe that their languages are mutually intelligible, nonetheless, they have some differences. The differences are brought about by the influence of the other languages spoken in the Samia community and the national language policies of the two countries. Therefore, on the Ugandan side of the border, the respondents reported that languages such as Luganda, Lusoga, Swahili and English are spoken. On the Kenyan side of the border, languages such as Luhayo, Lubukusu, Swahili and English are spoken. Because the Samia are in constant contact and interaction with different people both within and outside their communities (including across the border), they learn the languages spoken by the people they interact with so as to ease communication. In cases where they cannot learn a language of a particular group, they employ a lingua franca of that
151
particular community, for instance Swahili on the Kenyan side of the border. As Lefebvre (1991) points out, different spaces make different demands on the speakers that find themselves in that particular space. Thus, the Samia speakers are positive about learning a particular language if the space they are in calls for use of that language. This is confirmation of Busch's (2012) assertion that the different ideologies that people have influences how they use language in a particular situation.
2. Which linguistic practices do the Samia speakers in the two communities engage in in their different social networks and how do these contribute to the construction of linguistic identities?
Samia speakers, by virtue of being in a multilingual setting, have different linguistic resources in their repertoire. The study revealed that these linguistic resources are used variedly depending on the context of the communication. Therefore, language is dynamic and speakers often have to make different linguistic choices in the different domains in which they are engaged in their daily activities, as pointed out by authors such as Bucholtz and Hall (2004), Norton (2010) and Hall (1996). As a result of language being dynamic, it follows that linguistic identity among the Samia people is also ever changing. The Samia are constantly negotiating different linguistic identities as they make of use of different languages in the various language domains. Sometimes, the Lusamia speakers use an entirely different language in a given situation or switch from one language to another as the communication takes place (using strategies like code switching, translanguaging, trans-idomaticity, etc.). Sometimes, it is a different register of the same languages being used in the different communicative situations (as in stylization). In all this, the study revealed that the speakers are always comfortable when they can speak a language that is appropriate in a particular domain, and yet feel excluded when they cannot speak that particular language. In addition, the study also revealed that there are no ‗all purpose‘ languages. Rather, all languages are important but may be used in different language domains which means that knowledge of the languages in the community in which one lives is important for the Samia for carrying out the day-to-day interactions.
The findings of this study further reveal the existence of ‗truncated multilingualism‘ in the Samia community. The Samia have some knowledge of the different languages in their repertoire and only put to use what is required in a particular situation. In this case, the Samia do not always have full competence in the different languages; rather, the linguistic
152
competencies are geared towards specific situations. The findings of the study revealed that the Samia, aware of this incomplete knowledge of the different languages in their repertoire, often come up with different strategies to counter this limitation. One of such strategies is learning some words from the other language(s); another is to switch from one language to another or to use forms in that language that they feel will be understood by the other people in the communication situation. This situation of incomplete knowledge in the different languages and the different strategies employed pose different identity demands on Lusamia speakers. The Lusamia speakers continuously negotiate different linguistic identities in the different situations they are in; and this was the main focus of this study.
Identity construction, according to authors such as Spolsky and Asher (1999), Besley (2003), Goldstein (2001), Smalley (1988) and Wei (2007), is influenced by language. This means that the language(s) that people speak influence (s) their identity, which in the case of this study is linguistic identity. Findings of this study revealed that the Samia people constitute themselves through language – that is, the language(s) that they speak influence (s) the group(s) to which they belong. However, from the findings of this study, it is evident that sometimes people first come together, and then when the need to communicate arises, they select one of the languages in their repertoire that is appropriate in that particular communicative situation. So to belong to (a) particular group(s) one may not have to first speak a particular language, but rather get to that group and establish the language they speak, and then make the choice of that language. Although my study started out with the assumptions of a speech community (the two groups I studied have a L1 in common), I can see that from the daily interactions of the Samia, the notion of community of practice is theoretically more useful; it is not practical in this case. People organise their linguistic practices around the everyday practices they engage rather than language constituting the make-up of a group.
3. How does the language used in cultural ceremonies contribute to the construction of linguistic identities?
The findings of this study revealed that during cultural ceremonies, there are different determinants of which language(s) are used. First, the people who have organised the ceremony and their social status will have an effect on which language(s) is/are to be spoken. For instance, if the people are educated and thus have a high social standing in society, English will be spoken in Uganda, while in Kenya, English and Swahili will be used. This is done to include the invited guests who may not be from the Samia community and to ensure
153
that they understand what is being said. Even for people who originally came from the Samia community but now live elsewhere (especially in the capitol), the expectation is that they are educated because they are friends and family of a group that has high social status. So in both cases, English will be used to signal identity with this social status. By contrast, if the people organising the function were based in the rural area, not educated and thus considered of a low social status, in Uganda, Lusamia will be used, with a bit of switching from Lusamia to Luganda. In Kenya, Lusamia will be used, with occasional switching to Swahili. These language ideologies held by speakers, as Busch (2012) asserts, influence which languages are used in the different situations. Therefore the use of different languages during the cultural ceremonies means that the Samia continuously negotiate different linguistic identities.