*‘ Jul; '
.—.¢

AB‘J; ' t 511‘]

ma 4;...1.” ~

P

‘

r
t
X
.2;
A
b:

o

‘ u; n...‘

-. n .0. ‘

 

I

n..-

no“ "

»
l

A

' «m.

c‘: _ give.

+2»

1::

N.‘

Lu.ww

~‘ :Mra.

 

 

At Ilv:
.. .-... r.»

T»

.y.

"M2132;1
\"wrw' ‘ -

 

 

d1

v‘\

V”?

U”

Q.) SL3

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Language Attitddes: Nairobi People and Sheng

presented by
Peter Githinji

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M_asters degree in Linguistics

 

 

 

Major professor

Date September 13, 2002

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

| DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

3372“ 2W

 

 

“is i ‘21 lot

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRCIDntoDuo.p85-p.15

LANGUAGE ATTITUDES: NAIROBI PEOPLE AND SHENG’
By

Peter Githinji

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic
Asian and African Languages

2003

ABSTRACT
LANGUAGE ATTITUDES: NAIROBI PEOPLE AND SHNEG’
By

Peter Githinji

Previous work on Sheng’ has tended to be descriptive in nature. This has resulted in
claims that lack empirical support. In light of the changing dimensions pertaining to the
use of Sheng’ and the way it is viewed by different section of the population, some of the
earlier issues need to be brought up to date. This study departs from previous studies on
Sheng’ by relying on empirical evidence to qualify the claims made therein.

The objective of this study is to investigate the attitudes of Nairobi people
towards Sheng’ and its speakers. This is geared towards enhancing our understanding of
the changing pattern of people’s attitudes which account for the persistence of Sheng’
inspite if close to four decades of stigmatization.

This study combines traditional methods of attitudes research such as tables.
However, it has also adopted the popular methods used in sociolinguistic research such as
use of qualitative hand—drawn maps as well as semantic differential scales. The findings
show that people’s attitudes are not only influenceiby sociolinguistic variables of age, sex
and status, but also the function that Sheng’ serves within a status group depending on

whether raters perceive themselves as speakers or non-speakers.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my mother
Margaret Nyambura Ciira
For the gift of life, and priceless lessons

That have been my guiding light.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This thesis could not have been completed without the support of the members Of my
guidance committee. I especially hail the cooperation I received from my two co-chairs,
Dr. Deogratias Ngonyani and Dr. Dennis R. Preston, who by their excellent co-ordination
enabled me overcome the various hurdles on the way. The two have not only Offered me
the necessary guidance from the first day I joined the department, they have also
contributed greatly in nurturing my linguistic talent through enhancing my grasp of
linguistic theory as well as building my sociolinguistic methods of investigation. I am
also indebted to Dr. David Dwyer for his advice and valuable insight through his
understanding of the language situation in Africa.

I am also grateful to chair and the entire Linguistics department staff, as well as
other professors and the students for all the assistance and cooperation. They provided me
with conducive environment for scholarly work and gave me the much-needed
encouragement.

Other people outside the department also contributed to the success of this work
In this regard, I extend my gratitude to Professor Kirnani Njogu of Kenyatta University
for his encouragement and inspiration and Mr. John Gitau and his family, who offered me
a place to stay while collecting data in Nairobi. Of course I would not forgetmy
respondents whose input form the bulk of my research.

Lastly, I acknowledge the input of my family, especially my mother Nyambura,
and my two sisters, Wambui and Wanjiku and their families. They have all shown great

faith in me as well as motivating me to work hard. They will always remain part of me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter One:
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Significance of the study
1.4 Hypotheses
1.5 Scope of the study
1.6 Organization of the thesis
Chapter 2 Background of the study
2.1.0 Introduction:
2.1.1 Multilingualism and Language contact
2.2.0 Kenyan’s Language Background
2.2.1The language policy
2.3.0 Literature review on Language use in Kenya
2.3.1 Vemaculars
2.3.2 The status and use of Kiswahili
2.3.3 The status of English
2.4.0 Claims, and origins
2.4.1 Claims about Sheng’
2.4.2. The origin of Sheng’
2.4.3 Engsh?

2.5.0 Previous Perspectives used for looking at Sheng’

2.5.1 The Slang Perspective
2.5.2 The Argot Perspective
2.5.3 Pidgin and Creole Perspective

viii

\lChChUI-b

\O\OOOOO

20

2.6.0 Theoretical Frameworks in Language attitudes studies.21

2.6.1 Code-switching Framework

21

2.6.2 Markedness Framework
2.6.3 Accommodation Framework
2.7.0 Sheng’ and gender
2.7.1 Sheng’ and Age
2.8.0 Language attitudes
2.8.1 Attitudes towards Sheng’
Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2.0 Methods of data elicitation
3.2.1 Direct method
3.2.2 Indirect Method
3.3 The setting of the research
3.4.0 The respondents
3.4.1 Test Respondents in Michigan
3.4.2 Nairobi respondents
3.5.0 Instruments and procedure
3.5.1 Maps:
3.5.2 Percentage Scores
3.5.3 Factor analysis
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions
4.1.0 Percentage Scores
4.1.1 Respondents awareness and use of Sheng’
4.1.2 Estimates on percentage of Sheng’ speakers
4.1.3 Judgments Regarding use of Sheng’
4.2 Respondents identification of Sheng’ areas
4.3.0 Factor Analysis: Respondents’ Ratings
4.3.1 Factor loading Ratings of Sheng” speakers
4.3 .2 Factor interpretation for speakers
4.3.3 Factor loadings: The rating of Sheng’

4.3.4 Factor interpretation for Sheng’

Chapter 5 Conclusions

vi

22
22
23
24
25
26

27
27
28
29
3O
30
30
31
33
35
36
36

38
38
43
45
51
64
65
68
73

76

81

APPENDIX I
APPENDIX 11
APPENDIX 111
APPENDIX IV
Bibliography

vii

85
89
92
94
96

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Respondents knowledge of Sheng’

Table 2: Respondents use of Sheng’ according to age
Table 3: Knowledge of Sheng’ according to sex
Table 4: Use of Sheng’ according to sex

Table 5: Knowledge of Sheng’ according to role status

Table 6: Use of Sheng’ according to role status

Table 7: Estimates of the overall percentage of Sheng’ Speakers
Table 8: Estimates of Sheng’ speakers according to status groups
Table 9: Belief on who should speak Sheng’ according to role status.

Table 10: Reactions to older people speaking Sheng’ according to sex

Table 11: Reactions to older people speaking Sheng’ according to status.

Table 12: Respondents feelings towards innovations according to age
Table 13: Reactions to innovations according to status

Table 14: Reaction to innovations according to sex

Table 15: Factor loading: Students evaluation of Sheng’ Speakers
Table 16 Teachers’ evaluation of Sheng’ speakers- Factor Loadings
Table 17: The Down market People’s evaluation of Sheng’ speakers
Table 18: Up market People’s evaluation of Sheng’ speakers

Table 19: Touts’ evaluation of Sheng’ speakers - Factor Loadings

Table 20: Factor 1

viii

38

39

41

41

42

42

43

44

46

47

48

49

50

51

65

66

66

67

67

68

Table 21: Factor 2.
Table 22: Factor 3
Table 23:Students evaluation of Sheng’-F actor loadings

Table 24: Teachers evaluation of Sheng’
Table 25: Down market peoples’ evaluation of Sheng’

Table 26: Up market people’s evaluation of Sheng’
Table 27: Touts’ evaluation of Sheng’
Table 28: Factor 1

Table 29: Factor 2

ix

7O

72

74

74

75

75

75

76

79

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l: The Life cycle of Slang’

Figure 2 : Map of Nairobi used in the study
Figure 3: Drawn by a student

Figure 4: Drawn by a teacher

Figure 5: Drawn by a down market resident
Figure 6: Drawn by an Up market respondent

Figure 7: Drawn by a tout

19

34

53

54

56

59

61

LANGUAGE ATTITUDES: NAIROBI PEOPLE AND SHENG’
Chapter One
1.1 Introduction

A glaring deficiency in many language attitude studies conducted in Sub-Saharan
Africa is the avoidance of urban hybrid language varieties, which are a direct offspring of
language contact situations. More emphasis tends to be focused on mainstream languages
such as regional vernaculars, national, and official languages. Urban languages are
ignored, either because they are considered unimportant or an unwelcome problem in the
complex multilingual situations that characterize many Sub-Saharan African countries. In
Kenya for instance, the exact number of languages is a matter of some debate, based
largely on the difficulty of drawing dividing lines between languages and dialects.
Mbaabu (1996) and Abdulaziz and Osinde (1997) suggest the number is above 40. In
such a situation of “dense multilingualism” (Adegbija, 1994), speakers of different
languages will clearly have their opinions and beliefs about other languages as well as
their own.

Some of these opinions and belief can be a source of social conflict because an
emphasis on linguistic difference ofien functions as a guise for expressing the dislike of
the speakers of that language. When people are evaluating a language, these dislikes
manifest themselves in subjective judgments based on stereotypes associated with the
speakers. These evaluative judgments about languages and their speakers are the target of
language attitudes research.

Where the linguistic arena is already saturated, emergence of forms that further

complicate the already fluid situation is not usually treated with sympathy because it is

seen as negating the national aspirations of the eradication of ignorance and promotion
national cohesion. In addition, the use of non-standard varieties of language is assumed to
affect the learning of standard languages (Labov 1972, Halliday 1978, Mbaabu 1996).
The controversy surrounding the Black English trial in Ann Arbor Michigan in 1979
(Milroy and Milroy 1985, Niedzielki and Preston, 2000, Baugh 1998, Macaulay, 1997)
demonstrates that ignorance of people’s attitudes and subsequent failure to take them into
consideration in developing a country’s language policy can turn out to be explosive. It is
perhaps particularly important to note that nonstandard varieties are looked down upon,
most probably because of the class of people they are associated with. Such issues
revolve around ethno-racial bias, socio-economic status, age and sex.

In spite of this hostility, such languages continue to thrive, and they display a
vitality that defies the stigmatization they receive from the language purists. This can be
attributed to the “covert prestige” that speakers derive from them (Trudgill and
Andersson 1990, Milroy and Milroy 1985), as well as their utilitarian functions. The
antagonism between prescriptivists who advocate standard or mainstream languages and
the users of these forms evokes different attitudes from both sides of the divide
depending on the perspective one takes.

Sheng’ is a hybrid language, defined by scholars as an acronym of ‘Swahili
English slang’ (Mazrui 1995, Osinde 1986, Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997, Rocha 1998). Its
widespread use among the Eastland youth of Nairobi in the 19608 and 1970s (Mogaiand
Fee 1993, Mazrui, 1995, Osinde 1986) was initially seen as a threat to the development of
Kiswahili as the national language (Mbaabu 1996, Ngesa 2002). Not only was it

perceived as affecting the performance of Kiswahili in both primary and post-primary

'I

levels of education, but also that its continued uses outside the school environment was at
the expense of Kiswahili, mainly because it relied on Kiswahili for its structure
(Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997, Mazrui 1995). The initial perception of Sheng’ as a threat
to national/official languages has continued to dominate the agenda of language planners
as well as policy makers who have continually voiced their concerns in media forums.
Despite various condemnations from language teachers, policy makers and parents,
Sheng’ has grown even stronger. Initially confined to teenagers in Nairobi’s Eastland
slums, it has now attracted users in other slum areas as well as many post teenage
speakers. Presently a majority of Nairobi people at one time or another can be said to
speak Sheng’, depending on the parameters under which it is defined. In their
introduction to the third edition of the Sheng’ dictionary, Moga and Fee (1993) claimed
that it is becoming a language for people of all ages, a claim which has not been
adequately responded to by other linguists.

The spread and use of Sheng’ among different age groups and in residential areas
formerly considered hostile to Sheng’, together with its incorporation into the mainstream
media and popular culture, heralds a change or shift in the old stereotypes about Sheng’
and its speakers. However, Sheng’ has not been fully embraced by the entire population
of Nairobi. Although it has attracted a significant number of users from the middle class,
it continues to be widely associated with the low-class residential areas.

The major assumption made in this study is that Sheng’ elicits different perceptions
among different groups of users because each group associate it with a certain function.
These functions are not uniform amongst all status-groups. Non-users are expected to

perceive Sheng’ harshly because to them it serves no function. It is through the study of

attitudes that these functions will be demonstrated in an attempt to account for the
persistent use of Sheng’ in spite of the hostility shown by the non-users. Oral interviews,
questionnaires, maps and semantic differential scales will be used in this study to show
that the attitudes of different cadres of Nairobi people towards Sheng’ does not follow a
universal pattern and that there are variation based on social hierarchies especially age,

sex and status of the respondents.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The major purpose of this study is to evaluate the pattern of language attitudes of the
people of Nairobi towards Sheng’ as a linguistic variety and its speakers as they view
themselves and as they are viewed by others. It will adopt the language attitude approach,
as summarized by Williams et a1, (1976).

Urban language research has involved the linguistic study of social

stratification primarily in the identification of speakers socioeconomic

strata within city areas. Given this classification of the speaker,

linguistic variables, which have predictable variations in the speaker’s

performance in specified situations are identified. The eventual combined

description of speaker, linguistic variable, situations, and range of variation

(linguistic continuum) comprise the product of a typical language

study. (4)

The issues addressed revolve around how different people view Sheng’ and its
speakers, with an attempt to answer the following questions; 1) Why are some people
hostile to Sheng’ and its speakers? 2) Why do others continue using Sheng’ in spite of its
stigmatization? 3) What is the relationship between the use of Sheng’ and peoples’
judgments? 4) What is the influence of sex, age and the socioeconomic status on peoples’

attitude towards Sheng’? 5) The extent to which traditional stereotypes on Sheng’ and its

speakers continue to influence the present attitudes and the impact of the widespread use

of Sheng’ modifying those attitudes. Related to these issues will be the question of

whether Sheng’ is accepted generally or just tolerated.

1.3 Significance of the study

The study of language attitudes is important because it gives us insight into the social
psychology of human behavior (Baker 1992, Williams et al., 1976). Language is not only
a carrier of culture but also a part of culture. The personality traits that people associate
with certain linguistic behavior are indices of cultural stereotypes that people associate
with users of that speech variety. Studies have shown that speech-stereotyping influences
even the processing of messages (Street and Hooper 1982). For instance, perceivers can
interpret messages in a biased manner or selectively retain the massage that conforms to
their stereotypes. Such attitudes are of further importance because they accomplish
different functions: utilitarian or instrumental, ego defensive, value expressive or
knowledge (Ciapopo and Petty 1982). The significance of knowing people’s attitudes is
underscored by the fact that by exposing the attitudes, especially those of detrimental
nature, the functions those attitudes serve can be identified and addressed. Addressing the
underlying functions of negative attitudes that are of linguistic nature minimizes the
cultural conflicts that result from biased perspectives and stereotypes. Since as pointed
out Sheng’ elicit different attitudes to different people, the study of these people’s attitude
is of utmost importance.

The study of the underlying functions of attitudes towards Sheng’ and its users is
aimed at enhancing our understanding of the social psychology of Nairobi people. It
focuses on an area of academic discourse that has not been given adequate attention. The

study will, therefore, be a welcome contribution to the field of sociolinguistics, especially

in the methodology of studying attitudes towards a non-standard urban variety of

language in a multilingual setting.

1.4 Hypotheses
Several hypotheses are developed, most based on characteristic findings from previous
sociolinguistic work:

i) Women and older people underreport on their use of Sheng’ because they do
not want to be associated with stigmatized speech, while men and younger
people overreport because they derive covert prestige from the same speech.

ii) Users of Sheng’ will rate it more favorably than nonusers.

iii) People from the higher social-economic class tend to draw a distinction
between their variety of Sheng’ and the one spoken by their counterparts in

the lower social economic class.

1.5 Scope of the study

This study focuses on different categories of Nairobi People based on status
differences. Since it seeks to measure the general perception of the people of Nairobi
towards Sheng’, both speakers and non-speakers are incorporated. The respondents are
all adults above 18 years of age. The rationale for focusing on this group is that people
have for a long time labeled Sheng’ as a teenage phenomenon. This group is likely to

display the polarities of attitudes because it includes the following groups;

i) The current users of Sheng’
ii) People in transition that earlier studies claimed are abandoning their use of
Sheng’

iii) People considered to be former users of Sheng’ who have stopped using it
altogether

iv) Those who have never used Sheng’

One of the limitations of this study is the small number of respondents. It is
possible that other status groups could have been identified. Overlapping of respondent’s
role status cannot be ruled out, for instance, some students might hail from certain
residential areas but have been classified as a separate status group. While this is noted, it
should be appreciated that , this is only an initial study of language attitudes towards

Sheng’ which should help form a good background for future research.

1.6 Organization of the thesis

The rest of the thesis is organized as follows; Chapter 2 will be a review of the
literature with the background of Kenya’s language situation, and the studies conducted
on Sheng’. This chapter will also include the theoretical background under which the
attitudes towards Sheng’ are addressed in this study. Chapter 3 will focus on the methods
of data collection and analysis such as questionnaires, maps, semantic differential scales
and factor analysis. In Chapter 4, I present the results and discussion, which amongst
other findings shows that (a) attitudes towards Sheng’ are influenced by the functions it
serves amongst different speakers (b) Sheng’ continue to be associated with the youths
and people from the low social economic status (c) Popular culture plays a big role in
shaping peoples attitudes towards Sheng’. Finally chapter five will conclude the thesis

and suggest directions for fiIture research

Chapter 2 Background of the study
2.1.0 Introduction:

This chapter provides an overview of Kenya’s linguistic background and its
implication on Sheng’. It provides the background of the language policy from the
colonial period to the present, and the current norms of language use from section 2.1
through 2.3. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 provides claims and perspectives in Sheng’ discourse.
The theoretical models adopted in this study are discussed in section 2.6, while section
2.7 surveys sociolinguistic variables of sex and age which have had tremendous influence
on Sheng’. The final section of the chapter looks at the language attitude studies from the

general to those specific to Sheng’.

2.1.1. Multilingualism and Language contact

Multilingualism is an important characteristic of many sub Saharan African
countries. Communal solidarity as well as a pursuit for broader national aspirations
determines the domain that each of these languages occupies. The convergence of
peoples due to urbanization, education and integration into the national economy has led
to language contact, which has yielded different linguistic phenomena unique to different
countries. For example in South Africa, Flaaitaal, an urban vernacular amongst the black
community, came to embody the spirit of the struggle against apartheid (Makhundu
1995). South Africa had also seen the emergence of other urban varieties like Iscamtho
(Ntshangashe 1995) and before then, Fanakalo or Fanagalo (Mesthrie 1992, Bakker
1994), which was a hybrid of Zulu and Afrikaans. Fanakalo was not confined to South

Africa alone but had spread as far north as Zambia and Zimbabwe. This South African

language contact situation is comparable to the Kenya one though motivated by different

circumstances and occurring in different environments.

2.2.0 Kenyan’s Language Background

Language scholars have classified Kenyan indigenous languages into three broad
language families — Bantu, Nilotic and Cushitic (Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997, Myers-
Scotton 1993). Para-Nilotic languages, which fall between Nilotic and Cushitic
languages, are assumed to be a distinct group and taken as the fourth language family
(Kariuki 1986). Speakers of Bantu languages are the most dominant and comprise
approximately two thirds of the entire Kenyan population (Whiteley 1971, Rhoads 1977);
30% of the population speak Nilotic languages while around 4.5% speak Cushitic
languages (Fawcett 1970) In addition, there are other foreign languages spoken such as
Hindi, Gujerati, Punjabi, and Urdu from the Indian sub-continent. These are restricted to
the Asian community (Gorrnan 1974 b). While English is the most prominent European
language because of the status it enjoys being the language of the former colonial power,
others like German, French, Italian and Spanish are also popular mainly due to the
opportunities they offer in the tourism industry. However, most of them cannot be
considered significant in Kenya’s language typology. Use of all these languages in an

urban setting could be noted as forming a fertile ground for a hybrid language.

2.2.1 The language policy
This context of “dense multilingualism” presents a big challenge to language
planners when formulating policies. Unlike Tanzania, where the language policy is well

defined due to aggressive promotion of Kiswahili by the government, Kenya’s language

policy is not well defined and has been revised from time to time (Kariuki 1968, Myers-
Scotton 1993). At the onset of colonialism, Kiswahili was already being used in the
interior as a result of the long distance trade between the interior and the coast (Mbaabu
1996 Mazrui and Mazrui 1995). During the colonial period, language policy revolved
around the medium of instruction in schools. Education was provided by missionaries
whose primary purpose was evangelization. They influenced the choice of language in
elementary school by advocating for the language most understood by the children. This
later came to be entrenched in the recommendations by the second Phelps Stokes
Commission on education of 1924 (Gorrnan 1970, Mbaabu 1996). Vemaculars were
favored as the best languages of instruction in the lower education since they were
considered to have emotional appeal to the learners (Rocha 1998), while English was to
be used in higher levels of education, (similar arguments have been advocated by
UNESCO from as early as 19503). Eventually, twenty vernacular languages were chosen,
and teaching materials were developed in them (Mbaabu 1996). In effect, some speakers
were required to learn in other people’s languages, an enterprise that had a negative effect
on education among some people who thought they were being linguistically dominated.
The choice of only twenty out of over forty languages contradicted the very goal of
teaching people in their vemaculars.

Colonial language policy shifted against Kiswahili during the nationalist struggle
in the late 1940s because it was seen as having a unifying effect among different ethnic
communities, which was a threat to the colonial setup. English started to be emphasized
in school curricula at the expense of Kiswahili following the recommendation of the

Beecher report of 1942 on the teaching of languages in African schools (Gorman 1974 a).

10

The subsequent reports dwelling on the language of instruction at school continued to
support the use of vernaculars in lower school with English at the higher levels. In
secondary schools, English took over completely from Kiswahili in the 1950s (Bogonko
1988), and this trend continued up to the eve of Kenya’s independence and after, with
Kiswahili being reduced to a subject in the curriculum. Oddly perhaps, the independent
African government inherited a policy that gave more prominence to English as opposed
to Kiswahili. English thus continued to play a crucial role in government affairs and only
the people who mastered it in the education process during colonial times inherited the
jobs left by the departing European during the Africanization process. English thus
assumed the elitist status it enjoys today.

In spite of the declaration of Kiswahili as the national language in 1974 (Mbaabu
1977, Rocha 1998,IFasold 1984, Harries 1975, Kariuki 1986), English continued to
occupy a higher status than Kiswahili (Myers-Scotton 1993). Disregard for Kiswahili was
illustrated by the fact that it was not an examinable subject in both primary and secondary
school before 1985 (Bogonko 1988, Mbaabu 1996). This tug of war between Kiswahili
and English, and the acceptance of the role of vernacular, present a picture of a language
policy that is not well defined, a situation Mbaabu (1996) cites as one of the triggers for

the development of Sheng’.

2.3.0 Literature review on Language use in Kenya
2.3.1 Vemaculars
Vernacular languages continue to play an important role in the lives of most Kenyans,

particularly in the rural areas where the majority of the population live. A leading scholar,

ll

Ngugi wa Thiongo (1986), strongly advocated for the use of vernaculars as a way of
“Decolonizing the mind”. He has argued that education sounds foreign when taught in a
foreign language, which can be blamed for African’s educational and technological
underdevelopment. The merits and demerits of vernaculars have always been a thorny
issue; for instance, educational reports such as the Ominde report of 1964 (Rocha 1998)
recommended reduction of the role of vernacular in the education system while pointing
out to its importance out of school. The Gachathi report of 1976 recommended the re-
introduction of vernacular languages in the school system in the lower grades of Primary
school

On the media scene, the Voice of Kenya (VOK), later Kenya Broadcasting
Corporation (KBC)) continued to broadcast in sixteen different mother tongues (Mbaabu
1996). Today, other commercial stations like Rehema radio, East FM, Kameme FM and
Com FM compete for mother tongue audience with KBC. The change of political
environment from single party to multiparty politics in the early 19905 heralded a new era
in press freedom. Without government censorship, many vernacular monthly and bi-
monthly issues of magazines and other publications found their way into the newsstands.
With this type of scenario, the vernacular language in Kenya will continue to play an

important role for a long time to come.

2.3.2 The status and use of Kiswahili
At Independence, Kenya inherited a trifocal language policy that was shifting towards
English to the disadvantage of Kiswahili (Mazrui and Mazrui 1985). The independent

government made little effort to change the situation. It was not taken seriously and

12

teachers used its allocated time to teach other subjects that were examinable in national
examinations (Mbaabu 1996, Gachukia 1970). It was argued that Kiswahili could be
learnt without being taught in school (Wanjala 1970). Such logic continued to advance
the status of English as opposed to other languages (W anjala 1970, Bogonko 1988).

Following the adoption of the recommendations of the Mackay Commission of
January 1981 where the 8-4-4 (8 years primary school, 4 years secondary school and 4
years university) system of education (Rocha 1998, Mbaabu 1977), Kiswahili became a
compulsory subject in both primary school (KCPE) and secondary school (KC SE) levels.
This move was matched by an increase in enrollment in the Swahili program at the
national universities (Mukuria 1995)

Acceptance of Kiswahili by the majority in Kenya is attributed to the fact that it
had very few native speakers, so its adoption was not viewed as linguistic domination by
a big tribe, which could have fueled ethnic rivalry (Harries 1975, Mazrui and Mazrui
1995, Fasold 1984). Kiswahili in Nairobi and other urban areas of Kenya is the unmarked
language in most situations because it is regarded as ethnically neutral (Myers-Scotton
1993). However, there is no strict observation of grammatical rules because speakers do
not feel bound by the prescriptive power of standard Kiswahili (Myers-Scotton 1991),
and since the majority of Kiswahili speakers are not native speakers, they are not bound
by its traditions and cultural conventions (Harries 1975). For example, euphemisms
clothed taboo words in Kiswahili, but such social norms were not respected amongst
those who acquired Kiswahili as their second language. While many Kenyans are
comfortable in Kiswahili, they still use it alongside their first languages, and intermixing

is regarded as Sheng’ in some cases. Since it is based on Kiswahili grammar, Sheng’

l3

affects Kiswahili more than any other language. For those who see it as a corrupted

variety of Kiswahili, they are bound to rate it with Standard Kiswahili in mind.

2.3.3 The status of English

By the time Kenya achieved independence, English had already established itself as the
language of upward mobility. The opposition to its replacement with Kiswahili mirrors
the common trend in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa with regard to ex-colonial
languages as pointed out by Adegbija:

...attempts to oust them from a position of dominance have met with little success

and often, stiff resistance, because knowledge of them is now emblematic, in

varying degrees, with power, prestige, status, ‘making it’, ‘ being up there’,

and being able to achieve. (Adegbija 1994:21)

English has played a crucial role in Kenya in education, administration,
commerce and finance. English is needed for the “international model of cross cultural
communication” and the “local model of intranational communication” (Kembo-Sure
1995). Use of English in the education process influences the attitudes of the school
graduates to perceive it favorably thus perpetuating the trend. Today, the use of Kiswahili
by the majority of the population in Kenya and preference of English by the upper class
reflects the status difference of the speakers. Overall, English is indispensable: “It isn’t
optional. In practice, it is obligatory” (Downes 1998 :43). The majority, some of whom
are not competent in English in spite of their formal education, continue to intermix it
with Kiswahili and other vernaculars. This has been the basis of the claim that Sheng’ is

used to mask the speakers deficiency in English. Mixing Swahili and English enables

14

speakers to communicate with a wider group of people, while at the same time enhancing

the status of the speaker by identifying with the language of power

2.4.0 Claims, and origins

2.4.1 Claims about Sheng’

Carol Eastman (1984) identified three-generation gaps in Swahili. The “traditional” or
(old) generational Swahili that dealt with Swahili cultural things, “modem” or standard
generational Swahili that dealt with modern international things, while mixed pidgin
Swahili dealt with necessary things. Sheng’ would apparently fall under the classification
of ‘mixed pidgin’ Swahili in Carol Eastman’s definition. Sammy Wambua in Kenya
Times: December 21 1987 called it a linguistic crossbreed that has words from English
and all other Kenyan languages. In this study Sheng’ will be taken as a mixture of
different Kenyan languages with Kiswahili and English being the most prominent.
Scholars have agreed that the term Sheng’ is an acronym of Swahili English slang
(Mazrui, 1995, Osinde 1986, Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997, Rocha 1998). In spite of its
incorporation of elements from many languages, monolinguals speakers of these
languages who are outside Sheng’s culture cannot understand it.

In 1990, Philip Ochieng’, then managing editor of Kenya Times, sparked what
came to be dubbed “the Sheng’ debate” by calling for the establishment of a Sheng’
institute as a step towards fighting tribalism and hailed the youth who had been at the
center of its innovation; Kenya Times: August 8 1990. Ochieng blamed the Kenyan
authorities for not promoting Kiswahili like their Tanzanian counterparts and said that

Sheng’ was a welcome phenomenon to fill the void. Ireri Mbaabu (1996) expressed

15

similar views and claimed that Sheng’ was an outcome of poor language policy. In a
follow up to Ochieng’s proposal, Bobby Kiama, Kenya Times: November 11 1990
estimated that Sheng’ had millions of speakers especially among young people and had

diffused into the whole society. He remarked thus:

The popularity of Sheng’ can be attributed to schoolchildren who have
influenced their parents, teachers, and many adults to marvel at its beauty
and as a result many non-speakers have been recruited to speak it through
innocent influence. (Kenya Times: 11/11/1990)

This argument supports Osinde’s explanation of the diffusion of Sheng’ to include

the parents who had been excluded for a long time, which I quote below:

Initially, it was received with so much hostility that the youth found
themselves in trouble with their parents. But as time went by and more
and more words were created, with speakers becoming more expert in
the creation and using the language constantly, the parents and adults
in general became more tolerant towards it. So much so that a few of
them can now be heard to utter a few Sheng’ words especially to small
children. (Osinde 1986: 33)

Moga and Fee’s (1993) preface to the third edition of a Sheng’ dictionary say
nowadays it is not like the times when the young people used to confuse their parents
with Sheng’ because almost everybody now uses Sheng’. This claim is vague because it
fails to clarify whether this happens in all estates of Nairobi or whether this change is
restricted to the Downmarket areas where Sheng’ has been spoken by youth for a long
time. Investigation of attitudes of people from different estates can shed light on this

claim.

16

2.4.2. The origin of Sheng’

Sheng’ is an outcome of a language contact situation. Although there is consensus that it
began to be used around the 19605 and 19705, Mazrui (1995) collected data among the
people in Kibera and hints at the possibility of the existence of what can be regarded as
precursor of Sheng’ as early as 19305. Mr. Karanja, a one-time city criminal in the 19305
who admits that they were using a language that outsiders could not understand, confirms
this in’his book Miaka 50 Jela (so years in Jail).

Sheng’s origin canEattributed to code-switching as manifested through language
games (Parkin 1974). Language tolerance and the desire for inter-ethnic communication
has resulted in linguistic convergence. This is accommodation of others way of speaking,
manifested through language mixing, which is the foundation of Sheng’ (Osinde 1986).
In most multilingual estates, speaking of use of one language without interrnixing is
marked.

The most important reason advanced for the origin of Sheng’ is “the usual human
yearning for belonging to a group with which one identifies, a group which in most cases
excludes other groups” (Osinde 19868). The weakening of tribal affiliation as a result of
urbanization created a void. The urban setting could not provide youth with a language of

identity that catered to people from different language backgrounds; in short, Sheng’ had

to be formed to serve the needs of in-group solidarity.
2.4.3 Engsh?

Engsh is not a common term in Nairobi, but it must be mentioned when making reference

to the different varieties of Sheng’, or what its speakers call ‘slang.’ It is a variety

l7

associated with the youth from Upmarketl or higher status estates and is characterized by
a high concentration of English words with words from other languages thrown in here
and there (Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997). Engsh emerged as a deliberate reaction to Sheng’
to emphasize class distinctions between because the youths from these rich estates and
their counterparts from the poor estates (Osinde 1990). An alternative explanation would
be to invoke the dynamics of language in social network. Since there is low level of
communication between residents from these areas and those from the core areas of
Sheng’s innovation, then the Engsh clusters can be considered as relic areas (Downes
1998) if spread of Sheng’ follows the wave theory of linguistic change. The rating of
Sheng’ by residents from these areas vary, sometimes fluctuating to both extremes
depending on whether they view themselves within the whole picture of Sheng’ speakers

or as a distinct group of Sheng’ speakers.

2.5.0 Previous Perspectives used for looking at Sheng’

2.5.1 The Slang Perspective

Slang is racy, lively, vivid, current, hip, cool and in-group (Neidzielki and Preston, 2000).
Hypothetically, the users of Sheng’ might be expected to rate it high for these qualities.
In-group slang is a technical language and seeks to isolate outsiders (Burling 1970) and
does not necessarily arise out of the coinage of new lexical items, but from recreation of
“antiquated materials from older strata” of an existing language (Somig 1981). This is

illustrated by the life cycle of slang sown in Figure l.

 

’ Throughout this study the term is used to refer to the affluent residential areas.

18

Figure l: The Life cycle of Slang’

 

 

Neutral
_>
Vocabulary j

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ Vogue
Words 4? slang’ <—
Adaptcd from Anderson and Trudgill (1990: 87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 shows that slang results from extensive group innovation or simply from
the lexicon. Its regular use reduces it to vogue words, although vogue words can also be
created without necessarily coming from slang. Continued use drives vogue words into
neutral vocabulary, which can be repackaged back into slang and the cycle continues. A
good example in Sheng’ is the current trend of pronouncing the ordinary Kiswahili and

outdated Sheng’ words backwards, among the matatu2 touts3 as shown below.

Current word derived from ‘gloss’ origin
Chukua kwachu ‘take’ Kiswahili
Wang’acha chang’aa ‘illicit local gin’ Kiswahili
Manyu nyuma ‘back’ Kiswahili
Ngife fegi ‘fag, cigarette’ Sheng’IEnglish
Lembe mbele ‘before, in front’ Kiswahili

Source: “Matatu Madness” of May 15th June 15th and 15th June-15th July 2001.

In the above list, the older version of cigarette “fegi” has almost faded out since it
had already become a vogue word. After it changed to neutral vocabulary, it was
repackaged again by being pronounced backwards. Sheng’s manipulation of lexical items
from existing languages and its popularity amongst the group considered as wayward by
the society, and its perceived elegance is what gives it a slangy identity, but one can see

that it is more than a simple reformulation of vocabulary.

 

2 Matatus are privately owned vehicles offering commuter services in Kenya.
3 Touts are the Matatu Crew who duty includes ushering commuters and collecting fares.

l9

2.5.2 The Argot Perspective

Most urban varieties of language like Sheng’ in Kenya and Iscamtho in South Africa
(Ntshangashe 1995) are associated with criminal elements. Their classification as argots
stems from this. Testimony by Karanja (1993) justifies classification of Sheng’ as an
argot. One oft cited piece of evidence is that there are various synonyms related to
criminal activities like reference to police, stealing, violence and drugs. These
characteristics that have influenced peoples’ stereotypes of these languages and their
speakers are expected to play a crucial role in non-speakers’ evaluation of Sheng’.

Argots thrive on secrecy in order to isolate the uninitiated. Its use is conscious and
deliberate (Anderson and Trudgill 1990) and function as an identity marker (Abdulaziz
and Osinde 1997) while strengthening bonds~ of solidarity. Slang and argot make the
speech more vivid and interesting, and are aimed at precision as opposed to content.
Since they are constantly changing, they betray the users age (Anderson and Trudgill
1990) and locality. Older users of Sheng’ would be out of touch with the current trend
because most of the vocabulary which were in use in their time have been outdated or
gone into neutral use, creating room for new innovation. Raters who are excluded from
Sheng’ are likely to be influenced by the slang and argot qualities in their dismissal of

Sheng’ as the language of the youth and criminals.

2.5.3 Pidgin and Creole Perspective
Though some people tend to take Sheng’ as a pidgin (Eastman 1984, Rocha 1998), the
linguistic definition of a pidgin is not borne out. Pidgins arise to satisfy a communication

need in language contact situation where there is no lingua franca or mechanism for

20

second language acquisition (Burling 1970, Romaine 1988, Arends et al., 1994). The
evolution of Sheng’ was not prompted by such a need because English and Kiswahili
already existed as lingua francas (Osinde 1986, Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997, Mazrui
1995). Moreover, if Creoles are pidgins that have acquired native speakers (Appel and
Muysken 1987), then Sheng’ cannot fit into the Creole category. For now, there is little
evidence or parental input though such views are sometimes expressed (Osinde 1986:
35). In most cases, the opposite is true, as pointed out by Kiama (Kenya Times:
November 11 1990). Attitudes of Nairobi people will confirm that Sheng’ is neither a

pidgin nor a Creole.

2.6.0 Theoretical Frameworks in Language attitudes studies.

2.6.1 Code-switching Framework

Code switching is the use of two or more languages in the same conversation (Osinde
1986, Myers-Scotton 1992, Mazrui 1995). One language (matrix language) provides the
system morphemes while others (embedded language(s)) provide the content morphemes
(Myers-Scotton 1993). Code-switching presupposes the existence of minimal
bilingualism between both interlocutors (Beatens 1982) and the switched elements must
remain completely unassimilated (Choros 1991). Under the social perspective, what is
true of code switching can be extended to Sheng’. It takes place when the participants
want to project two identities. It involves making choices, either marked or unmarked,
and these choices are determined by the costs and rewards to be reaped. However, code
switching can occur for purely aesthetic reasons just like Sheng’. Code choices are an
index to the rights and obligation set in a given interaction which defines the kind of

people you can communicate to in Sheng’. These rights and obligations could be gender

21

based, age influenced, ethically influenced or status influenced (Myers-Scotton 1993).
The adoption of code-switching in this study is because some elements of code-switching

are regarded as Sheng’ (Mazrui 1995, Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997).

2.6.2 Markedness Framework

Although the code-switching perspective subsumes the markedness model, it is crucial to
view markedness on its own when evaluating attitudes especially since Sheng’ involved
more that just code-switching. To some people Sheng’ is itself a marked code because it
is a deliberate effort to switch language. However, it can also be unmarked especially
amongst those who use it intensively. Myers-Scotton (1993) predicted that people tended
to maintain unmarked choices in order to retain the status quo. If Sheng’ is a marked
choice, then the negative attitudes of non-users can be interpreted as defense of the status
quo by the non-users. At the same time, the positive attitudes of users can be interpreted

as maintenance of the status quo since to them it is unmarked.

2.6.3 Accommodation Framework

People in a multilingual environment accommodate each other by finding a common
ground in their speech where their differences are reduced. The two accommodation
strategies are linguistic convergence and linguistic divergence. In linguistic convergence,
speakers increase perceived similarities with their addressees in order to become more
attractive or to gain social approval (Kariuki 1986, Giles et al., 1973, Giles and
Powesland 1997). Linguistic divergence on the other hand is when speakers enhance

perceived dissimilarities with their addressees in an endeavor to maintain their freedom.

22

These two strategies will prove cmcial in interpreting attitude pattern of different status
groups.

Accommodation results in speakers adOpting different versions of Sheng’ or
registers. For instance, there is Sheng’ for speaking to casual acquaintance, Sheng’ for
speaking to older people as well as Sheng’ for speaking to the in-group. By speaking a
rather diluted version of Sheng’ to those who are not so comfortable with the deep
Sheng’, dissimilarities are reduced, paving the way for others to acquire some few new
words, and this process may result in reducing the social tensions that used to exist
between the interlocutors. This however means that Sheng’ can be under threat of losing
its function in the in-group. In order for Sheng’ to preserve its relevance in the in-group,
perceived dissimilarities are increased to keep off and isolate the out-group. A good
example is the touts who immediately create new words when old vocabulary becomes
neutral (Section 2.5.1). Convergence hence opens Sheng’ to the vast majority of speakers
who would otherwise be excluded if there were no accommodation. Sometimes even
people who can only speak little Sheng’ as a result of such accommodation can “over-
report” and claim constant use. This affects attitudes because even people who only speak

some few words of Sheng’ will claim knowledge of it.

2.7 Sheng’ and gender

Women tend to be more conservative (resistant to new forms) in their language use
though there have been reported cases of women being initiators of linguistic change
(Milroy 1980). If the change serve an empowering function, then women would very
easily abandon the conservative linguistic behavior. As far as Sheng’ is concerned, girls

are not great participants in the Sheng’ culture, though current trends show young women

23

in slum areas becoming regular users of Sheng’ (Mazrui 1995). Their ratings of the
variety are most likely to be influenced by the prescribed social norms rather that what
they really believe. Favorable attitudes on the other hand would mean that there are
rewards in Sheng’, which they seek to reap, and this would generally point to some

prestige status of Sheng’ or general acceptance.

2.7.1 Sheng’ and Age

Like much slang, Sheng’ has always been associated with the young people. Older people
who attempt to use it are regarded with suspicion because they are seen as intruding into
the private lives of the youths. Lack of seriousness in life has often been cited as one of
the factors responsible for Sheng’s popularity among the youth. The youth form strong
network with their peers, which is broken as they progress further in age with maturity
and employment. Schools are regarded as important institutions for the learning and
spread of Sheng’, though it depends on their location and patrons. Schools with high
concentrations of people from lower class areas are more likely to be the hubs of Sheng’
while those with children from Upmarket estates are expected to have very little Sheng’.
This status difference is enhanced in schools patronized by both Downmarket and

Upmarket children as highlighted by Osinde (1986).

Parents from high-class estates do not encourage their children to
mix with those from the Eastlands who speak Sheng’. Moreover,
they are viewed as belonging to different class. They blame it on
the parents of those children who speak to their children in Sheng’”
(Osinde 1986:35)

Osinde points out that there is a high concentration of schools in the Eastlands

areas of Nairobi, which are considered to be the cradle of Sheng’. From this it can be

24

concluded that school plays a very crucial role in the acquisition of Sheng’. People who
have already passed through school in Nairobi where they were in contact with the
speakers of Sheng’ are most likely to have mixed evaluations stemming from their

contact with Sheng’ speakers.

2.8.0 Language attitudes

Dittmar and Schlobinski (1988) point out that attitudes towards a language determine the
status it enjoys and consequently the kind of people likely to use it. Baker (1992: 12) gave
three components of language attitudes:

i) Affective component that deals with feelings
ii) Cognitive component that deals with thoughts and beliefs and
iii) Conative or readiness for action component that is concerned with intentions

to act in a certain way in given circumstances.

These components, as Baker points out, may not always be in harmony, but they are
crucial because they encompass both the behaviorist (response to social situations) and
mentalist (stimulus affecting a person’s response) viewpoints (Fasold 1984: 147).
Research on language attitudes does not rely only on observation of external behavior
since it can be misleading as pointed out by Baker (1992: 15)

“Observation of external behavior may produce mis-categorisation and

wrongful explanation. Such behavior may be consciously or unconsciously
designed to disguise or conceal inner attitudes”.

Language attitudes research “avoids a report of the attitude itself, preferring to

infer it from responses to samples” (Preston 2000) because once people know that their

25

attitudes are being investigated, they consciously or unconsciously invoke the social

norms of usage such as the proscription, prescriptions and standardness.

2.8.1 Attitudes towards Sheng’

Considering the affective component of Sheng’, it is expected that, since the speakers are
the stigmatized group, they are likely to rate Sheng’ highly in affective dimensions such
as friendliness and pleasantness. This was confirmed by studies of attitudes towards
stigmatized speech among its speakers (e.g., Preston 1996). Non-speakers may exhibit
opposite tendencies because they disapprove of the different values that speakers of
Sheng’ express. The cognitive component manifests itself in the invocation of
standardness and conformity to social norms that govern language behavior. Both
speakers and non-speakers of Sheng’ know that women and old people are not supposed
to speak ‘bad’ language. Therefore conformity to social stereotypes may exert a huge
influence on attitudes towards Sheng’.

The discussions in this chapter have shown that Kenya’s language situation has
contributed to the development of Sheng’ and the attitudes people hold towards it. We
have looked at the Sheng’ debate from various perspectives and hinted at the theoretical
frameworks that motivate the use and perceptions on Sheng’. These frameworks
determine the sociolinguistic variables that are used in evaluation of attitudes. Finally,
there has been a brief review of language attitude studies from the specifics to those

relevant to Sheng’. The next chapter demonstrates how these attitudes can be evaluated

26

Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction

This chapter will focus on the methodology used in the collection of and analysis
of data in this study. It opens with the discussion of the methods commonly used in
various sociolinguistic researches and then proceeds to the setting and the choice of the
respondents, the instruments and the procedure. The chapter ends with an elaboration of
the methodology adopted in this study.

Decrying the few language attitude researches carried out in sub-Saharan Africa,
Adegbija (1994) observed that deficiency in methodology, both in collection and analysis
of data, was the major weakness. Mutonya’s work (1997) on attitudes of educated
Africans towards varieties of African English was a major improvement in language
attitudes research in sub-Saharan Africa.

The methodology adopted in data collection and/or analysis bears a direct relation
to the findings. As such, it is important, while identifying the sample of respondents to
ensure that it is representative of a population (Williams et al., 1976). Apart from
considering social stratification as pointers to variables, appropriate methodology and
good analytical skills are needed in the study of language attitudes (Adegbija 1994,
Mutonya 1997), especially when dealing with cases of self-report. That is why indirect

methods are preferred in the measurement of language attitudes.

3.2 Methods of data elicitation

Both direct and indirect methods of determining language attitudes have been used with

varying degree of success. There are arguments for and against each of the methods.

27

3.2.1 Direct method
The direct method of investigation relies on self-reporting and observation. “A totally
direct method would require subjects to respond to questionnaire or interview questions
that simply ask their opinions about one or another language” (Fasold 1984: 149).
Observation is also included in the direct method of investigation. Since questionnaires
and interviews involve self-report, Mutonya (1997) sums up the direct methods as “self-
report and observation.” One advantage of this method is that it is specific. Its main
disadvantage is that it can be time consuming especially when transcribing tape-recorded
information. Moreover, the researcher is confronted with the problem of dealing with the
“observer’s paradox” (Labov 1972). This is more serious in recorded interviews, which
are not ordinary speech events. Recording instruments intimidate the respondent,
especially if the topic under discussion is controversial. This was put more succinctly by
Preston (2000)

When people are aware their speech is being investigated, their

self-monitoring devices are turned up. The resulting performances

are a combination of their conscious most systematic nonvernacular

language rules and superposed models of schooling, proscription,
prescription, erudition, deference, defensiveness, formality...”

One consequence of this could be reaching wrong inferences and conclusions
when generalizing on people’s attitudes.

In observation, inner feelings and opinions of the people are completely
disregarded and only the external behavior is represented, yet, as Baker (1992211)
observed, “A person’s thought, processing system and feelings are hidden” and can
therefore not be directly observed. The linguist can be relying on the wrong inferences to

certain traits, which could result in mis-representation of attitudes.

28

Drawing of maps and giving them qualitative labels is one of the direct methods
of attitudes elicitation, which has been used in various studies (Preston 1988, 1996,
Hartley and Preston 1999, Preston 1999). This method is adopted in this study to
investigate the mental maps of the Nairobi people regarding the distribution of Sheng’
and whether this correlates with the demographic patterns and the stereotypes associated

with those areas.

3.2.2 Indirect Method

The indirect method has dominated the field of modern language attitude research simply
because the subjects are not aware that their attitudes are under investigation. It is a good
strategy of dealing with the observer’s paradox. The most widely used indirect methods
are the matched guise technique of Wallace Lambert, where respondents rate voices of a
single person in different guises, and the semantic differential scales of Charles Osgood,
where respondents rate a variable using bipolar adjectives drawn on a scale. These
techniques are very often combined, but only the latter is used in this study.

The strength of indirect method is that subjects are not overtly aware that their
attitudes are under investigation. This reduces self-monitoring which is a way of
overcoming the observer’s paradox. This study has utilized both direct and indirect
method of attitudes elicitation. However, the focus will be on the indirect method while
the direct method acts as support. The direct method in the study is when the respondents
are asked for the stereotypes that dominate the collective reasoning of Nairobi people and

which are crucial in attitude measurement.

29

3.3 The setting of the research

This study was conducted in Nairobi, Kenya’s capital city, which also serves as the
administrative and commercial capital. In the first post independence national census
Nairobi had slightly over half a million inhabitants. Today, the population has grown to
over 2 million people according the 1999 national census. The Central Business District
(CBD) will be taken as the dividing line between the eastern and western sides of
Nairobi. Most of the higher status population lives on the Westside, while most of the
low-income earners and the unemployed live in the Eastlands. Although the economic
disparity correlates with place, invoking geographical distribution is not completely
accurate because there are poor neighborhoods like Kangemi, Kawangware, Dagoretti
and Uthiru in the Westside. Likewise, there are estates like Irnara Daima, South C, South
B, Nairobi West in the Eastside which are upper middle class areas, which, by Kenyan
standards, can be considered affluent. This kind of socio-economic stratification is crucial
because it reflects the pattern of language use, which consequently may influence

language attitudes.

3.4.0 The respondents

3.4.1 Test Respondents in Michigan

A sample of 18 people was taken from Kenyans living in Lansing, Michigan. The
purpose of this sample was to test the methodology to be used in the final reasearch. The
bipolar adjectives that have been used in earlier research were proved ineffective in the
elicitation of attitudes among African respondents (Mutonya 1997). As such, Mutonya

recommended that future language attitude research should ensure that the adjectives

30

came from African respondents. My respondents were asked to come up with adjectives
that could apply in Nairobi setting. This test sample was also important in identifying
other details relevant to Nairobi. These respondents do not constitute any part of data
analysis and were not stratified in terms of gender or age, but one crucial factor is that

most had come from Nairobi and all were conversant with the Sheng’ phenomenon.

3.4.2 Nairobi respondents

The collection of data in Nairobi was done on a stratified basis to ensure that people from
different categories, as well as different areas of Nairobi were represented. Although a
stratified method was used to determine the status groups and sex, the respondents
themselves were selected at random. The method therefore allowed striking of a balance
in gender representation as well as getting people from different localities. The

stratification of the respondents was as follows:

The university students

This is the age group that is currently using Sheng’. They are also the grdup believed to
be abandoning or extending the use Sheng’. Most are leaving the teenage years and
shaking off peer influence. They have defined their future expectations and they can
analyze the benefits of the traits they adopt. This group’s favorable ratings would reflect

the continuity of Sheng’.

The language teachers
Since this is a study of people who have had no formal study in linguistics (or “folk

linguists,” Preston 1994), secondary school teachers were avoided because, irrespective

31

of whether they teach English or Kiswahili, they take introductory courses in linguistics
at the university. Their attitudes are likely to be clothed in that garb. Primary school
teachers, however, have no formal linguistic knowledge and their attitudes are influenced

by the society’s expectation that they teach pupils the standard languages.

Down-market Residents

These are respondents from the low social economic group who live in the poor
neighborhoods in Nairobi characterized by shanty structures, broken sewers, heaps of
garbage and a sense of helplessness (N gesa 2002). Historically, these neighborhoods are
considered to be the cradle of Sheng’. Do the residents rate their language favorably or

do they suffer from linguistic insecurity as a result of the stigmatization of Sheng’?

Upmarket Residents

This group of respondents comprise of the affluent people in Nairobi and is historically
considered hostile to Sheng’. Is it because they despise it or is it because they don't know
it? What makes some of them crave for a stigmatized language? Their favorable rating

would point to endorsement of Sheng’ and rising acceptance.

The Touts.

This group represents “institutional” use of Sheng’ in the context of popular culture. They
are today considered the greatest innovators and creators of new vocabulary. They are
also an important group in the dissemination of Sheng’ because of the mobile nature of
their work, and their group behavior is subject to stereotypes, which have characterized

the non-speaker’s view of Sheng’.

32

3.5 Instruments and procedure

A questionnaire for gathering demographic information with 8-closed questions
(appendix) was first administered. We suspected that some of the subjects might have
problems with the English questionnaires, hence all were translated into Swahili so that
subjects could chose whichever language they preferred. This questionnaire asked for
their personal details: sex, age, languages used, languages preferred, length of residence
in Nairobi, and neighborhood(s) lived in.

The respondents were then presented with maps of Nairobi with the names of the
major residential areas written in (Figure 2) and told to identify areas where they thought
Sheng’ is spoken. The main purpose was to see whether the respondents associated
Sheng’ with certain estates and whether they would mark their residential areas as Sheng’
areas. Since the respondents had diverse educational backgrounds, qualitative labels were
not solicited. If respondents could not write, the names of the estates were read to them

and then they were asked whether they thought Sheng’ was spoken there.

33

Figure 2 : Map of Nairobi used in the study

 

known
Grown!
’ WWW
RIWWNC
MW!
Grater . GARNN
xmsueu I ‘ wanna
(n w WW
"2" Am... - “5"" mm»
IMO PA “um" — Mm" act
'I‘SBOIMI ‘ PM‘MI Wu; H
. WESTMNOS nan“ mantis mo coco
Wat-mt I _. _ ' W“
- . uwmcm COD _ W05
vacuum . ”mam...”
tantrum». tum 0020‘th mmmnt
tutu-1AM, m AIRPORT
’7 . M
c :23 manual
KAREN 04" ‘5‘! "may 7 apnfiwm Miami:
‘7‘ Kitsch '
LANGATA ' A 1- H I
‘ NAIROBI NATIONAL PARK

 

 

 

The oral interview with 14 open questions were tape-recorded, though the
respondents were free to introduce any issue related to the study that they so desired. The
researcher’s role was reduced to asking questions and seeking clarification. This
question-answer section functioned as the post task interview or debriefing (Preston
1993). It was especially crucial in the map drawing section. (A sample of questions used
in the oral interview is given in Appendix B.)

In evaluating subjective judgments of the informants, two semantic differential

scales were used. One sought the ratings of Sheng’ while the other one sought ratings of

34

the speakers. This was intended to confirm or refute the claim that people rate the
speakers rather that the language.

Williams’s research design (William and associates, 1976, Fasold 1984) was
utilized in the development of the two semantic differential scales. The test respondents
in Michigan were asked to give all the negative and positive labels they associated with
Sheng’ and its speakers. These labels were later developed into the bipolar adjectives that
were to be used in the Nairobi research. A seven-point scale was adopted.

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

 

 

 

Easy not easy
Inclusive exclusive
Intimi dating . friendly
etc. . .

This study however deviated from William’s model in that it did not use the
matched guise technique and relied heavily on the Nairobi people’s latent stereotypes and

perceptions.

3.5.1 Maps:

Map drawing has been used widely in the study of dialects. Preston (1988, 1996) and
Preston and Hartley (1999) employed this method in the study of American regional
varieties. Preston’s model involved asking the respondents to give qualitative labels to
different regional speech areas in the US. The respondents were also asked to rate the

kind of speech spoken in those regions using qualitative adjectives similar to those used

35

in semantic differential scales. In both cases, it was possible to elicit judgments of the
respondents, mostly arising from social stereotypes and caricatures.

In this study, the respondents were asked to identify and mark the areas where
they thought Sheng’ was spoken. During debriefing, they were asked why they marked
certain areas and left out others. The reasons they gave in most cases depicted their
attitudes towards those areas. It was expected that the respondents who did not want to be
associated with Sheng’ would exclude their areas while those who wanted to be

associated with Sheng’ would include their areas.

3.5.2 Percentage Scores
In the analyses, the respondents are identified in terms of status groups, sex, and
age. The way the respondents react to key issues in the research is calculated in

percentage scores and then represented in form of tables.

3.5.3 Factor analysis

A factor analysis involves grouping together of features that co-occur with high
frequency. In some studies a factor is given a cover label, but this is not adopted here.
Factors are simply clusters that represent areas of high-shared variance in the data (Biber
1998) or the “relatedness among a set of several items” (Fasold 1984). For example, if
several adjectives in a semantic differential scale express the same or closely related idea,
they cluster together under one factor. For instance, adjectives such as “law abiding,”
“humble,” and “disciplined” might cluster together because these features express a

closely related idea.

36

u .5

{If 7' m1.

The adjectives used in the semantic differential scales were studied using the
Systat statistical program. Two scales were under review, one dealing with the attitudes
of the people towards Sheng’ speakers, while the other dealt with the attitudes towards
Sheng’ as a language. The number of factors in either scale was determined by rotation
of the factors using the Varimax Rotation Pattern that showed the factor loadings and
then plotted the eigenvalues and factors in a scree plot. Only the factors with .30 and
above were taken as significant loading in a factor group.

This chapter has presented the methodology used in this study from the collection
Of data to their analysis. The methods discussed includes the well known methods of
percentages and tables to the least used methods of qualitatively hand drawn maps and

factor analysis. This combination is expected to give credible generalization.

37

 

Chapter 4: Results and Discussions

Although the interviews provided crucial information in this study, they are only
used to authenticate the data that the respondent gave in order to avoid misinterpretation.
The discussion in this chapter will therefore focus on the data from questionnaires, maps
and semantic differential scales as presented in this chapter, however, most of the claims

and conclusion drawn relied on information provided in those interviews.

4.1.0 Percentage Scores

4.1.1 Respondents awareness and use of Sheng’

There is a difference between awareness of Sheng’ and its knowledge. At least
everyone in Nairobi is aware of Sheng’, but not everybody knows or use it. The majority
associates it with the youth, reaching the optimum during teenage years and then
beginning to decline to almost negligible levels by the time the speakers attain the age of

40. Tables 1 and 2 show this overall decline in Sheng’ knowledge and use by age.

Table 1: Respondents knowledge of Sheng’ according to age (N=29)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Know Sheng’ Don’t Know
18-24 14 100% 0
25-34 6 75 2 25
35-40 5 100% 0
Over 40 1 50% 1 50%
Total 29 90% 3 10%

 

 

 

 

 

38

T

_—- *—
s

3‘

Table 2: Respondents use of Sheng’ according to age

 

 

 

Marginal use Intense use No use
18-24 29% 4 57% 8 14% 2
25-34 0 O 75% 6 25% 2
35-40 20% l O 0 80% 4
Over40 50% l 0 0 50% 1
Total No: 21% 6 48% 14 24% 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 shows that 90% of all respondents know Sheng’. All the 14 respondents
between 18-24 years category know Sheng’. The 25-34 age group as compared to 35-40
age group challenges the expected pattern of diminishing knowledge. Perhaps this
inconsistency can be attributed to the difference in the number of respondents in the two
groups. Other reasons such as sex and status cannot be ruled out as will be demonstrated
later. Nevertheless, the 35-40 data does not constitute sufficient ground to challenge
earlier claims that use of Sheng’ diminishes as speakers advance with age (Mazrui 1995,
Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997 and Osinde 1986). If this sample mirrors the overall situation
in Nairobi, then it can be concluded that majority of Nairobi people know Sheng’, the
difference only being in the degree of knowledge. (See appendix III for a sample of
language used by respondents)

Table 2 illustrates that knowledge of Sheng’ does not reflect its use. Although
100% of the respondents in the 18-24-age bracket know Sheng’, only 86% admit using it,
and 29% are only marginal users. Again the age group between 25-34 years does not
offer any significant variation since the only respondent that doesn’t know Sheng’ does
not use it. There is no significant difference with the 35-39 years age group since it is

only one respondent who claimed marginal use. The respondents over 40 years either do

39

T' "xii-"7'41 I

not use it or use it marginally. If instances of code-switching were regarded as Sheng’,
then those who don’t use it would be the minority

Perhaps young speakers are likely to rate Sheng’ favorably because they are
speakers themselves. Variation should start to be noticed from the age of 25-34, the group
affected by a weakening of their social network. There is high mobility and constant
relocation in search of employment, resulting in the break-up of social bonds. If this is
true, then it can be said that Sheng’ is not an overall phenomenon. If it were, then these
people would not find it hard to integrate into new networks. Other factors must therefore
be at play.

Perhaps these people fail to integrate because they encounter different varieties of
Sheng’ from the one they are accustomed to and this excludes them from the new
networks (Ngesa 2002). Furthermore, their goals in life become more important than
preoccupying themselves with adaptation of current language norms. Respondents claim
that Sheng’ is a way of growing up and speakers outgrow it in maturity. A commonly
cited case is that even within single languages, the youth have the tendency to manipulate
the language (such as talking backwards and nose talking) for their in-group use, which
they stop on reaching adulthood. Although this study concentrates on late teenage raters,
it is consistent with Labov’s (1972) observation that adolescents are the most consistent
users of the vernacular. Viewing Sheng’ as a language of the young people is partly
responsible for its lack of universal use. Adults are perceived as immature if they
continue using Sheng’. Reduced use of Sheng’ amongst former users can thus be

attributed to social conformity.

4o

71

‘r- r ‘4‘...- in“

Women lag behind in the use of Sheng’. Various studies have demonstrated that
women associate more with the prestige as opposed to stigmatized forms (Downes 1998,
Milroy 1980) and generally underreport on their use of non-prestige forms. Table 3
illustrates the disparity between knowledge and use of Sheng’ according to different

SCXCS.

Table 3: Knowledge of Sheng’ according to sex (N=12 Females, 17 Males)

 

 

 

 

Know Sheng’ Don’t Know
Males 1 6 94% 1 6%
Females 10 83 2 17%
Totals 26 90% 3 10)

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Use of Sheng’ according to sex

 

 

 

Intense use Marginal use No use
Male 1 1 65% l 6% 5 33%
Female 3 25% 5 42% 4 29%
Totals 14 48% 6 21% 9 31%

 

 

 

 

 

 

From table 3, there is roughly only a 10% difference between the percentage of
men who know Sheng’ and the women who know Sheng’, but in table 4, two thirds of the
men claim intense usage compared to a quarter for the women. The majority of the
women claim marginal use, but there is no significant difference between the sexes of
those who reported no use of Sheng’ at all (see also in appendix 111). Many previous
sociolinguistic studies have shown that women tend to shy away from speech varieties
that violate established norms. They approximate more closely to the prestige pattern
(Downes 1984, Milroy 1980) and tend to under-report on their use of non-standard forms,

which can be attributed to bowing to social pressure. For instance, female speakers of

41

Iscamtho in South Africa were regarded as prostitutes, nymphomaniacs and social
outcasts. Even when Iscamtho ceased to be specifically criminal, female speakers were
still locked down upon (Ntshangashe 1995). It is possible that males over report on the
use of Sheng’ because of its covert prestige while women underreport because of its
deviation from norms. This will surely have an impact on the attitudes of the two sexes.

Is there any correlation between knowledge of Sheng’ and its use among different
status groups? The prediction is that knowledge go hand in hand with the use, hence the
people who know Sheng’ will use it more widely than those who do not know it. The
relationship between knowledge and use of Sheng’ amongst various status groups is
presented in tables 5 & 6.

Table 5: Knowledge of Sheng’ according to role status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D/market Touts Students Teachers U/market Totals
Know 3 6 6 6 5 26
Don’t know 3 0 0 0 0 3
Table 6: Use of Sheng’ according to role status

Intense use Marginal use No use
Down-market 50% 3 0 0 50% 3
Touts 83% 5 O 0 17% 1
Students 50% 3 33% 2 17% 1
Teachers 17% 1 33% 2 50% 3
Up-market 40% 2 40% 2 20% 1

 

 

As illustrated in table 5, all the status groups apart from the Downmarket residents
report 100% knowledge of Sheng’. This is a major paradox because the Downmarket

areas are places stereotyped as its home and birthplace. From Tables 3 & 4 above, it can

42

_ “fir!

I
1

be seen that most women claim no use and it is possible that all women in the
Downmarket estates reported no use. This is not surprising because women have been
shown in previous studies to underreport in their use of non-prestige forms. This
underreporting is a clear indicator of linguistic insecurity. The data from the Downmarket
raters present another interesting piece of information. It is the only place where all
respondents who know Sheng’ use it intensively. The touts continue to report high use,
and the only respondent who doesn’t use Sheng’ confessed unapologetically that he was
restrained by his religious faith and age. Very few teachers use Sheng’ even if they know
it, probably picking up it from their children, students and speakers in their residential

areas.

4.1.2 Estimates on percentage of Sheng’ speakers
Constant users of a language might take it for granted that it is the general trend,
while marginal participants might hold the opposite view. I examine this by looking at

respondents’ percentage estimation of Sheng’ speakers according to sex in table 7.

Table 7: Estimates of the overall percentage of Sheng’ Speakers
30% 40% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 90%

 

 

F l l 3 0 3 l 2 O l 0
M 1 l 3 1 2 0 5 3 0 1
Total 2 2 6 1 5 1 7 3 1 l

 

 

All respondents estimate that the number of Sheng’ speakers is very high.

According to most of them, at least two thirds or 60% of Nairobi people speak Sheng’.

43

Majority of the women estimate the overall speakers of Sheng’ in Nairobi to be below
65%. In contrast, male respondents give a higher estimates of Sheng’ users in Nairobi,
the majority projecting over 70% of the overall Nairobi population. There are two
explanations for this; women might deliberately report low use of Sheng’ as a show of
their dislike for the stigmatized speech. On the other hand, there is correlation between
women’s use of Sheng’ and the way they report about its use. It is possible that women’s
low participation prevents them from acknowledging the wide use of Sheng’ for lack of
information. Table 8 presents the estimates of different status groups to examine whether

the above conclusion has any merit.

Table 8: Estimates of Sheng’ speakers in Nairobi according to status groups
30% 40% 50% 55% 60%, 65% 70% 75% 80% 90%

 

 

 

Tout - 1 2 - - - 1 1 1 -
DM 2 - - - - - 1 2 1 -
ST - - 2 1 3 — - - - -
TE - 1 1 - I - 3 - - -
UM - - 1 - 1 1 2 - - -
Total 2 2 6 1 5 1 7 3 2 -

Table 8 shows that overall there is a correlation between use and estimates of
speakers as concluded in women’s data in table 7. Only four out of twenty nine
respondents think that less than 50% of Nairobi population are Sheng’ speakers. These
are one tout who reported no use of Sheng’, and who believes that it should be banned, a
teacher who doesn’t speak Sheng’ and believes that it should be discouraged for
corrupting the standard languages, and two Downmarket resident who as pointed out
earlier suffer from linguistic insecurity and could be actually underreporting. Generally,

most respondents apart from the students think that Sheng’ is spoken by over 65% of the

44

Nairobi people. Different status groups believe that Sheng’ is used by the majority in
Nairobi.

The respondents also estimate (data not shown) that majority of the speakers are
in the 16-24 age group, followed by the 7-15 age group. This again confirms Labov’s
(1972) assertion that the adolescents are most persistent users of the vernacular. The 25-
29 age group forms a significant chunk while the number of speakers reduces with
advancement in age. The respondents have their explanation for this state of affairs. For
instance, the teachers claim that the 7-15 age group does not use Sheng’ alot because its
members are still under parental care and guidance and they are still in school. At home,
their parents prevent them from using Sheng’, while at school they are prevented from
speaking Sheng’ by the teachers. It is only when they move from primary school that they
acquire freedom to speak any language they like because of diminishing influence of
their parents and teachers. This argument can account for the perceived high use by the

16-24 age group by the teachers.

4.1.2 The Respondents’ Judgments Regarding use of Sheng’

When the respondents are making their judgments, they are guided by their adherence to
social conventions that govern language use. These social conventions prescribe the
norms of language use. In the case if Sheng’ for instance, they believe there are certain
categories of people who should not speak it. This is illustrated in table 9 by their
responses to the question of who they thought should speak Sheng’. There was interesting

reaction from the respondents of different status groups.

1:“ "Pf—"'7
I ~a

Table 9: Belief on who should speak Sheng’ according to role status.

 

 

Depends Nobody Everybody Youth
Touts - l - 5
Downmarket - 1 2 3
Students - - 3 3
Teachers 1 l - 4
Upmarket l l 1 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

This table shows that more than half of the respondents would prefer Sheng’ to be
restricted to the youth with the most notable group being the touts followed by the
teachers. The matatu touts, most of whom are youths, would not like everybody to speak
Sheng’. They fear it might become a neutral language if used by everybody, denying
them an instrument of group solidarity. The Downmarket people are not hostile to Sheng’
and wish it were universally used so that it will be shorn of the negative labels that put
them at a disadvantage. It is also possible that Sheng’ is used by the majority in their
neighborhoods so much so that the respondents do not see anything wrong with
everybody using it. Unlike the touts, these people do not take Sheng’ as an in-group
language, but as an ordinary language just like English, Swahili and the vernaculars. It is
not a language of solidarity but a tool of wider communication. The Upmarket people
avoid overall condemnation of Sheng’ contrary to expectations. Although they are
generally perceived to prefer English as compared to other local languages, their
unexpected use of the “non-standard” language defies the stereotypical pattern. Perhaps
they can defy the norms of language use because they know that there is no penalty

(Myers-Scotton 1993). Their liberal views might therefore not point to a change of

46

attitude towards Sheng’. This favorable reporting by the Upmarket raters can be
attributed to their definition of Sheng’. For instance, many people consider all cases of
code switching, which is common amongst many Kenyans, to be Sheng’. If this is
assumed to be the case, then this favorable reporting can naturally be explained.

The respondents’ report on the use of Sheng’ is related to complex understandings
of their demographic features, but they usually report what they believe should happen
rather that what actually happens. There are certain norms and expectation that govern
language behavior. If use of non-standard speech is taken as wayward, then older people
are not expected to participate since they have passed that stage in life. This was
confirmed by asking the respondents how they would react if they found older people,

especially their parents speaking in Sheng’. Their reactions are presented in table 10.

Table 10: Reactions to older people speaking Sheng’ according to sex

 

Bad Depends N/A OK Surprised
Females 6 - 1 - 5
Males 8 1 2 1 5

 

It is evident that both sexes consider it odd for older people to communicate in
Sheng’. Only one male respondent thought it was OK while another thought that it
depended on who they were speaking to. It would be tolerable if elder people spoke
Sheng’ to their age mates, but Sheng’ between adults and youth is not acceptable. It can
be argued that accommodation of the older people to Sheng’ is not valued since it is
regarded as a language of young people. While the youth uses it for group identity, it has
no function among the older people. The data in table 11 seeks to establish whether these

reactions have any peculiarity that can be attributed to any status group.

47

Table 11: Respondents reactions to older people speaking Sheng’ according to role status.

 

 

Bad Depends N/A OK Surprised
Touts 4 1 1 - -
D/Market 3 - - l 2
Students 1 - - - 5
Teachers 2 - 2 - 2
U/Market 4 - - - 1
14 1 3 1 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is only among the Downmarket raters where there is a respondent who claim it
is OK for parents or older people to use Sheng’. Although this is not sufficient to form
any generalization, it is crucial that this respondent is from the Downmarket estate. Since
Sheng’ has been used in these areas for a long time, it is not surprising to find parents,
especially the younger ones, speaking in Sheng’. These residents can be reporting the
reality, as it exists in their estates, where the degree of markedness of Sheng’ has reduced
as a result of being used there for a long time. Almost all the Upmarket respondents
disapprove of their parents using Sheng’. Again this can be attributed to the linguistic
pattern of their estates where parents are known to prefer English. As such a parent
talking in any other language, especially a marked, non-standard one, would look odd.
The element of surprise is not interpreted here as disapproval. And the students seem to
be the most liberal status group in this aspect. To the students, the parents can be
motivated to use Sheng’, perhaps as an accommodation strategy in an effort to understand
their children more. All the respondents, especially the touts, are not happy with this
mode of accommodation, hence the continuous modification of Sheng’ in order to

increase the perceived dissimilarities and maintain it as their in-group code.

48

If Sheng’ is a marked code among a specific status group, then norms of language
use will prevent older people using it, but where Sheng’ is unmarked, like in the
Downmarket areas, then use by parents would be tolerated. The teachers, touts and
Upmarket raters perceive Sheng’ as a marked code only fit for the youth. There is
therefore very little motivation for the choice of a marked code amongst the parents and
older people. This view is more in line with the traditional stereotypes on Sheng’ and its
users.

One of the reasons cited for abandonment of Sheng’ when speakers advance in
age is that they are unable to keep up with new innovations. This is due to the fact that
there are other pursuits in life the take priority to Sheng’. It was expected that inability to
understand what Sheng’ speakers are saying could be the foundation of negative attitudes
towards it. This was investigated by asking respondent how they would feel if people
used unfamiliar Sheng’ vocabulary. There were varied responses depending on the age

and status groups of the raters.

Table 12: Respondents feelings towards innovations according to age

 

Bad Depends OK
18-24 8 l 5
25-29 2 1 5
30-35 1 - -
35-39 3 2 -
40 and above - 2 -

 

 

49

—. _
a _

l
I.

Table 13: Reactions to innovations according to status

 

 

Bad Depends OK
Touts - 1 I 5
Downmarket 2 2 2
Students 4 l 1
Teachers 5 l -
Upmarket 3 - 2

 

 

Table 13 shows that the 25-29 age bracket is more receptive to innovation as
compared to the 18-24 age bracket, contrary to expectation, but the rest confirms the
prediction that, as people grow older, they become less receptive to innovation and hence
cut off from the Sheng’ culture. The unexpected inconsistency with the 18-24 age group
can be accounted by the fact that there are many women in that age category and as
pointed out elsewhere, women try to isolate themselves from the Sheng’ culture. The
prediction that innovators are the most receptive group is confirmed in table 14 because
the touts do not conceive of innovations as outside their reach. They take it upon
themselves to learn new vocabulary by virtue of Sheng’ being their professional jargon.
Nairobi people isolate matatu crew as crucial in the dissemination of Sheng’. In this
study, one of the respondents, a tout, claimed, “matatus are the factory of Sheng’” which
shows that the touts are aware of their input in the Sheng’ culture. Unlike touts the
Downmarket residents are evenly distributed because their language does not serve an in-
group function, and they are no longer important innovators. Although they still master
new vocabulary, they are sometimes left out. Underreporting cannot be ruled out due to

linguistic insecurity. Looking at the Upmarket residents, it is possible that their

50

receptiveness is due to the fact that they conceive of a different version of Sheng’, the
Engsh (Abdulaziz and Osinde 1997) which they are the innovators of and hence not left
out. When these results are analyzed according to sex, there is a remarkable difference as

shown in table 14.

 

 

Table 14: Reaction to innovations according to sex (N=12 Female, 17 males)
Bad Depends OK

Females 83% 17% 0

Males 24% 18% 68%

 

 

Women are not receptive to innovation in Sheng’ and they feel alienated. Even
those who speak it distinguish between deep Sheng’ and common Sheng’. Deep Sheng’ is
an in-group language which excludes outsiders while anybody can use common Sheng’.
While 83% of the women feel bad when confronted with innovations, only 24% of the
men feel that way. Men are more receptive to innovations in Sheng’; 68% are
comfortable when people speak to them using new vocabulary. It can be inferred that
women’s negative attitudes result from their exclusion from Sheng’s in-group, which cuts
them off from new innovation. Lack of rewards in Sheng’ makes women see no
incentives for accommodating with Sheng’ speakers. If women tend to favor prestige
norms, then their negative attitudes indicates that Sheng’ has yet to acquire prestige

statu S .

4.2 Respondents identification of Sheng’ areas

I will not discuss every map drawn by the respondents but will take some as

representative and explain the salient features in them that can be generalized. A clear

51

division of Nairobi (figure 2) into two stereotypical linguistic areas is evident. The city
center is the dividing line between the Westside and the Eastside parts of Nairobi. The
Eastside is comprised of estates such as Kariobangi, Kayole, Dandora, Komarock,
Buruburu, Pumwani, Huruma, Industrial area, Mariakani, South B, South C, Nairobi
West. Other estates in the Eastland not included in the maps are Muthurwa, Ziwani,
Shauri Moyo, Mbotela, Bahati, Kaloleni, Uhuru, Makongeni, Harambee, Outering, Ofafa
Jericho, Maringo, Makandara, Hamza and Umoj a. This study assumes that the
respondents who label the Eastlands as a Sheng’ area have most of these estates excluded
in the maps in mind.

The Westside is comprised of estates such as State House, The Hill, Kilimani,
Golf Course, Kileleshwa, Woodley, Kibera, Hurlingham, Langata, Lavington, Loresho,
Gigiri, Kitisuru, Muthaiga, Parklands, Ngara, Spring Valley, Kangemi, Kawangware and
Dagoretti. The status of the CBD was mixed. Some respondents who invoked proximity
to the downmarket areas associated CBD more with the Eastlands while others mainly
associated it with the Westlands.

Figure 3 represents a typical map. Apart from Kangemi and Kawangware in the

Westside, no other areas are identified as Sheng’ clusters by most respondents.

52

Figure 3: Drawn by a student

 

   
 
 
  

kAqua
almost“
1019"“!
RIDGEWR‘I; KISAEANI
GlGlEl 5“an
arms out KAMA
.rrum 70”"
um
. Hrmfi'é‘
Km .
° . nexus»
NESTMNDS
LAUINGM
bAooeam K,uww._w
umumm mm "203“"- MTZPNH‘DONM
murmur ‘3 Amt“?
1r¢g~‘ Wmuy «23".- "flffr‘ M5843!!!"
KAREN ‘1, my!” ' yum“
c"-"7' KIIBIA '

LANGA‘T'A A T H l

NA! 208! NATIONAL PARK

vNGATA
Road“

KITENGELA

 

 

 

The majority of Nairobi people associate residential areas in the Westside as up-
market estates inhabited by the affluent section of the population. Such a broad
generalization of Nairobi into two geographical categories is misleading because it tends
to ignore some pockets of Sheng’ in the Westside while also ignoring some Eastside
estates that are excluded from Sheng’ culture.

It is strange that Kibera, the largest slum in Kenya is excluded in Figure 3. Most
respondents only included it during debriefing after I asked them to give reasons why
there is no Sheng’ in Kibera. Three explanations are possible in this case; 1) It is likely

that the respondents only figured the periphery of the slums, mostly occupied by the

53

middle class; 2) The majority of the landlords in Kibera are Nubian Muslims who prefer
using Standard Kiswahili; 3) The poor residents of Kibera, most of whom trek long
distances to the Industrial area every day in search of manual jobs, are more concerned
with their survival and have no time for building linguistic bonds of solidarity. This can
be attributed to the weak networks of the low class people (although Milroy and Milroy
1992, Milroy 1984, Macaulay 1997 note the opposite). Moreover, most are forced into
the slum life because of the housing problems in Nairobi and harbor dreams of escaping
from the slum life, hence the low network formation. If Sheng’ is strictly associated with
low social-economic status, then Kibera could be the first estate to be identified by virtue

of it being the largest slum. Other maps have their own peculiarities as in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Drawn by a teacher

 

NAIROBI

q
. W SEE-‘7 .m'
@b wanna .

 

@‘m w @>

 

 

 

 

54

The most striking thing about this map is that apart from two estates, Gigiri and
Ruaraka, all the rest of Nairobi areas are circled as having Sheng’. Ruaraka houses the
national headquarters of the National Youth Service (NY S) and the headquarters of the
paramilitary General Service Unit (GSU). In these two institutions, Kiswahili is the
dominant language of instruction and general communication, just like in the police and
the army. Gigiri houses the Headquarters of the United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP). The folk belief is that UNEP HQs, being an international institution, would have
nothing to do with Sheng’. Instead these areas are hubs of international languages, more
specifically English. The respondent might even be guided by the consideration that
Gigiri and Ruaraka are not residential areas but rather occupational areas where people
from different linguistic backgrounds meet on strictly business terms. The domains of
Sheng’ can thus not fall into these two areas. This would be wrong because there are
some residential sections in Ruaraka and Gigiri. However, what is striking is the way this
map generalizes the idea that Sheng’ is an overall phenomenon in Nairobi by the marking
of all the other areas.

Interestingly, this map was drawn by a teacher in a primary school though this
cannot be generalized for all the teachers. Teachers mark their school location as well as
their residential areas as Sheng’ clusters. Although their maps follow the traditional trend
of associating Sheng’ with the Eastlands, following the common stereotype, they do not
feel any attachment to it. They are daily witnesses of the effects of Sheng’ in school
performance, especially in languages like English and Kiswahili. Moreover, they are
charged with the responsibility of teaching the schoolchildren standard languages. The

inclusion of their respective schools as Sheng’ areas point to their knowledge that it is

55

widespread in schools, which is as a result of its wide use in the estates. Although a
majority admit knowledge of Sheng’ most teachers prefer not to speak it. They cannot
emphasize standard languages while using Sheng’ at the same time because social norms
require them to teach through example. The teachers are reliable commentators since they
are able to detach themselves from Sheng’ networks due to occupational demands.

As pointed out in the discussion of Figure 4, some prominent phenomena act as
cues for bringing out the respondents stereotypes of speech pattern of certain estates.
Figure 5 is a typical representation of the Downmarket respondents. The International
Airport is at most times excluded because people say that only international languages

are spoken there.

Figure 5: Drawn by a Downmarket resident

 

®

 

  

NA 1 R O B t
. -
Rinsewms
m... a..." @E
ltmsvzu ”MEDIA ”Ankh
JTMm JWHST «Elli!!!»
, _.... HIV-"A l 0‘ OMOOIAI
' "W“: @t
WWW“ m:
'-
LNlflOM -m
m “was“.
* ®% - W...
uma Arena?
”may “Wk? M05"...

.KAESN ”73¢: ll[~” ' Haitian?
» '
@ A T H .

NAmocl NATIONAL PARK

ONOATA
MMI

KITENGELA

 

 

 

56

Reliance on of cues like a salient phenomenon also explain why some respondents
exclude the industrial area where they attribute lack of Sheng’ to the fact that only
industries are found there. Others think that convergence of people of diverse linguistic
backgrounds at industrial areas in search of menial jobs makes the use of Sheng’
inevitable. These two opposing views are present in most maps and other respondents’
responses. For instance, schools to some are the enclaves of Sheng’ because of the high
percentage of the youth; to others, school are not important Sheng’ areas because these
are the places where standard languages are taught. In the CBD, some respondents think
Sheng’ is absent because official businesses that takes place there are carried out in
official the languages. To others, the CBD is the meeting place of many people from the
estates where Sheng’ is prevalent, yet another group claim there are pockets of residential
areas in the capital city. The students from the University of Nairobi for instance
considered themselves as part of the CBD.

The Downmarket residents mark their residential areas as Sheng’ estates and
exclude most of the Upmarket estates, which they associate with English. They are
conscious of the stereotypes associated with the local norms but maintain their loyalty to
them. They are also aware of the association of Sheng’ with the low classes, hence their
identification of the Downmarket areas as Sheng’ clusters on both sides of the divide. In
densely populated multilingual environments such as the Downmarket estates, linguistic
convergence is usually achieved through accommodation to other people’s ways of
speaking in order to gain social acceptance as noted in Nairobi’s Eastlands by Burja

(1974) and Parkin (1974). This environment is conducive for Sheng’ within the

57

framework of the accommodation theory of Giles, Taylor and Bourhis (1973) and Giles
and Powesland (1997).

Most respondent in the Downmarket estates isolate the newer estates like
Dandora, Komarock, Kahawa, Githurai and Roysambu. These newer estates are
perceived not to have evolved their typical linguistic patterns. That the Downmarket
residents mark their residential areas as Sheng’ clusters provides evidence that they are
comfortable with it. Their loyalty can be understood as serving an ego-defensive
function. Vulnerable or insecure people hold ego defensive attitudes in their endeavor to
protect themselves from embarrassing or unfaltering fact about themselves (Ciapopo and
Petty 1982). This can also be viewed as a face saving strategy (Brown and Levinson
1987) if stigmatization of the downmarket speakers is regarded as a face-threatening act.
In order to save their face, the downmarket respondents avoid antagonizing anybody by
claiming that it is the general trend as an excuse for their use of Sheng’. They also bring
out its more positive aspects like friendliness to show that there is nothing wrong with the
language and can even be preferred to the standard languages in some cases. For instance,
an Eastlands respondent claims that people from the Eastlands talk a lot (thanks to
Sheng’) while in the Upmarket areas, one can stay mum from morning to evening
(probably due to the coldness they associate with the standard languages or their
speakers, or the notion that higher status speakers are less friendly). This conforms to
earlier studies, which show that local speech is affectively preferred regardless of its
correctness (Preston 1996). This is not true for the Downmarket respondents as shown in

figure 6 below.

58

Figure 6: Drawn by an Upmarket respondent

 

r
RAMA”
N A l R 0 B l
. Gfl'WRfll
RO-ISAMIU
RIDGEWA‘K
st... cam
IITISUQU
“MB
In»; new
101“!“ ”male,

wesruuos 1..on

.m
LMHGM
Mona-n .

KCMIBMA'w
".m‘m mm INW‘mI‘L WNAWONHL
‘9 KlUMMW Am AIRMQT
‘64? "may can. “cry: Minimum
KAREN '1,“ wfifi ‘ 'Naru'flf
' " ~ '
LANGA'TA
NA'ROBI NATIONAL PARK
9049an
KONMI

 

KITENGELA

.

 

ATHl

 

Unlike the teachers who admit knowledge of Sheng’ but no use, most up-market
people claim knowledge and use of Sheng’, but one striking feature in their maps is
exclusion of most of the up-market estates (Figure 6). The Upmarket residents try to
emphasize the status difference between them and the Downmarket residents. Their
failure to mark up-market residential areas as Sheng’ areas in spite of their admisSion that
they know and use Sheng’ demonstrates that it is not the stigmatized language that they
despise, but the status of the people who are identified with it. If this was the case, then

what the Upmarket respondents are implying is that they gain Sheng’ outside their home

59

 

areas because it is not used at home at all, a claim supported by the Downmarket

respondent “0”.
As I said before ...Sheng’ is security... you find the children from the wealthy
areas over there try to ensure their security. They want to look like locals

when they visit these sides, but they dare not speak to people from their
residential areas in Sheng’. (My own translation. Original in Sheng’)

The use of Sheng’ in the Upmarket residences is a marked phenomenon, which
even the Downmarket residents understands. Indeed, most of the Upmarket residents
confessed to not knowing deep Sheng’ and distrust those who speak it. They regard these
people as the embodiment of all that goes against the aspirations of the higher status
class, such as poverty, poor education, drugs and violence. Most preferred to use the term
“slang” rather that Sheng’ which can partly explain the failure to identify their areas as
Sheng’ clusters. In Abdulaziz and Osinde (1997), the up-market areas are identified as
Engsh clusters.

We have pointed out in several sections that the matatu touts do not shy away
from association themselves with Sheng’. In fact they consider themselves as the most

important people in creation of new vocabulary. This is reflected in figure (7) below.

60

Figure 7: Drawn by a tout

GEE-ED

   

karma:
RIDGGNRK
Grater GARW
xmsueu M I WACAKA
1"in 90W
vault
'roardi ~ "mm”
o PARKMMDS ‘
GP ® mm
LMlN‘M can ‘Wos
- < Erratum“ 31::
«Muslim mun 'NW‘IR'“ WMMNM-
mmau_ ‘9“- Am Mar
42;,“ Norway «3‘5 ”3). c "neuron"
.KAREN "'0 mp0." -' 'Mmtf
3'" '
LANGATA V A -r H j

NA! 2081 NATIONAL PARK

on 0mm
Ron“!
KITENGELA

Unlike other respondents, the touts identify Mariakani, Nairobi West, South B and
South C in the Eastside, and Westlands, Lavington and Hurlingham in the Westside as
Sheng’ areas. The only interpretation that can be deduced from this is that all these
estates are plied by matatus. This is very crucial because the touts are considered to be
the most consistent users of Sheng’. I will elaborate on this by highlighting the role of the

matatu industry as popular culture, which has been ignored in previous discourse.

 

Matatus are privately owned commuter service vehicles, which ply different

routes in Nairobi. They are popular among the youth because of their elegance and loud

61

music, mostly American pop music and reggae although recently Sheng’ rap and hip-hop
music has made its presence felt. Older people detest matatus because of the noise and
the recklessness of the drivers who often disobey traffic rules. The mental picture that the
Nairobi people have for the matatu touts is that of drug addicts, alcoholics, uneducated,
and crude. They are often accused of luring innocent schoolgirls into sex with gifts and
free rides while acting as supply chains for drugs to the schoolboys. The touts are
themselves rude and abusive, with no respect for their commuters. They overload the
passengers and raise fares at the slightest excuse. This group is very mobile due to the
nature of their occupation and has adopted Sheng’ as their professional language. This
puts them at the vantage point in its dissemination on top of being its active innovators.
They are aware of the role they play on its spread and it is no coincidence that all the
areas excluded in most of their maps are either not plied by matatus or are not important
transit points because the residents have their private means of transportation. The touts
reflect the use of Sheng’ as an in-group language within their profession. Moreover, they
also hail from these low class residential areas where it is used widely, hence the
inclusion of the Downmarket area in their maps.

From most of the maps, the status difference has been seen to play an important
part in the respondents identification of estates where Sheng’ is spoken. Moreover, the
common stereotypes play a major role in the identification. As a generalization for all the
maps, it is evident that most respondents leave out Parklands and Ngara due to the high
number of Asian residents, even though there are many African residents in the two
estates. Asians are not known to use Sheng’. They do not form social networks with their

African counterparts who use Sheng’ and are therefore excluded from the Sheng’ culture.

62

When people indicate that in Ngara and Parklands there is very little Sheng’ because
those who stay there are Asians, they are more or less commenting about that aspect of
the stereotypical Asians exclusiveness and ethnicity.

This aspect of exclusiveness and ethnicity would also explain why in the affluent
residential areas there is little Sheng’ since the homesteads are excluded with little or no
interaction among the neighbors preventing the formation of Sheng’ networks. Moreover
the Westside estates in the periphery of Nairobi are perceived as relying much on English
and mother tongues, specifically Kikuyu, because they border Kiambu District, a
predominantly Kikuyu speaking region. Once more, the stereotypes come into play since
the preference of Kikuyu in the periphery areas has not been attested. In any case,
Kiambu is only some few minutes’ drive from Nairobi and cannot escape the Sheng’s
influence from the city as a result of daily movements of workers.

Moreover, the dynamics of Sheng’ in popular culture as was the case with the
touts is also expected to have an influence on its perception in these estates especially in
music, broadcast and the print media. For instance, in recent years, local artists have
begun to use Sheng’ vocabulary in their music. This music is played in matatus and
commercial radio stations that have come up after the liberalization of the airwaves. The
DJs and announcers in Kiss 100 FM and Capital 98.4 PM are very liberal in their
language use. These stations do not have nationwide coverage and are limited to Nairobi
and its environs, or some few urban areas. The effect of these stations is that Sheng’ is
now accessible to those sections of the population which were formerly isolated.

However, their content only targets listeners from a specific category, especially the

63

youth. The whole impact of these stations on Sheng’ and the way it is perceived is yet to
be assessed and should be an interesting topic for future research.

In the print media David Maillu’s ‘Without Kiinua Mgongo’ (1989) was the first
publication in Sheng’, however, the most fruitful work has been in magazines and
newsletters. The “Slum news”, “akalashoescom” have been in operation for sometimes
and have used Sheng’ extensively. The entry of “Matatu madness” into the field
(mentioned in page 3) is likely to overshadow these magazines because of its financial
base and integrity of its staff. Its chief editor is a widely published author and a respected
journalist in the mainstream media. Hi5 popularity as a leading humorist is likely to make
the paper attract a lot of readership both inside and outside Sheng’s domains. Since one
of the reasons advanced for the abandonment of Sheng’ is that former speakers can no
longer keep up with the innovation, the paper’s efforts in keeping readers updated with
new vocabulary is likely to ensure continuity and enhance their retention of Sheng’.
Continued rejection of Sheng’ will hence be attributed to other reasons such as the
persistent stereotypes.

This section’s drawings illustrate that even a simple exercise like drawing of maps
cannot avoid reference to social class differences and ethnicity, which continue to

influence the language attitudes of the Nairobi residents.

4.3.0 Factor analysis: The Respondents’ rating
In section 3.5.3, we saw that factor extraction involve arbitrary grouping of
related features that co-occur with high frequency. This section presents factor loading of

the two scales used in this study to extract speaker-oriented and language-oriented

64

factors. One goal is to develop a correlation between the more qualitatively interpreted
hand-drawn maps and the percentage scores in the previous sections. The two scales use
different adjectives to define perceived traits attributed to Sheng’ and its speakers. 15
there any correlation between the positive or negative evaluation of the language and its
speakers? What are the peculiarities in the evaluations of different status groups?

In the following section, I first analyze the speaker-oriented factors of all raters
and later the language oriented factors. I will then proceed to discuss the correlation
between the two and attempt to make a general conclusion.

Interpretation of the factors depends on the highest loaded features and might
therefore not generalize on all the features that cluster under one factor group. A high
loading negative feature will indicate the opposite tendency to the rest of the traits
(denoted by different adjectives) in that factor group. Only the traits that have a loading
of .30 and above are considered significant. Although more factors were extracted from
some status groups, only three were taken from every status group in order to maintain
uniformity in generalization. Taking three factors also had the advantage of avopiding
overfactoring (Biber 1988).

In this study, the traits with high loadings are interpreted as those with the value
of .60 and above. Tables 15 to 19 below show how the features (traits) under survey

loaded under different factors for each of the status group.

4.3.1 Factor loading Ratings of Sheng’ speakers
Table 15: Factor loading: Students evaluation of Sheng’ Speakers

 

Fagtor 1 Factor 2 Factgr 3
Creative ,_6_0 .08 .77

65

Friendly 50 .36 .71

Polite -£_5_ .02 .27
Respectful .23 . 18 .95
Trustworthy . 14 .94 . 19
Educated .91 .06 -. 12
Well behaved .23 £2 -.52
Serious .91 .17 .40
Rough -.27 fi .41
Law abiding -.26 -.26 ,fl
Less tribalistic .13 .08 &

All significant positive features are in bold. High positive features are underlined. Significant negative features are in italics

Table 16 Teachers’ evaluation of Sheng’ speakers- Factor Loadings

Factor 1 F agtor 2 Em;

Tmstworthy .37 .54 £1
Law abiding .46 .30 .37
Serious 18 -. 14 .33
Less tribalistic .07 .10 ,_9_3
Respectful .54 £2 .04
Educated £2 . 14 .45
Polite -. 15 .22 . 15
Rough L9 -.20 .36
Well behaved .54 .35 fl
Friendly ,2_5_ .02 .1 1
Creative fl .44 .44

All significant positive features are in bold. High loading features are underlined.

‘ Table 17: The Downmarket People’s evaluation of Sheng’ speakers

Adjectives F actorl Factor 2 Fagtor 3
Serious ,fl -. 10 .02
Trustworthy .1 1 ,_6_5 .25

66

Less tribalistic
Friendly
Respectful
Polite

Law abiding
Well behaved
Educated
Rough

Creative

,ss .21
,2; .04
.25 ,gg
.46 .20
.25 .07
.36 .12
.21 ,1g
,2; .16
.58 .35

.34

All significant positive features are in bold. High loading featum are underlined.

Table 18: Upmarket People’s evaluation of Sheng’ speakers

Polite

Well behaved
Law abiding
Rough
Creative
Trustworthy
Serious
Respectful
Educated
Friendly

Less tribalistic

WM
.09 ,2;
.42 .30
.24 ,g2
.17 .26
.01 ,§2
-89 01
.34 —25
_gg .30
,gg .07
.45 a88
.34 .24

Ilium
A03
,g9
-24
452
,2;
415
.22
.15
.46
.22

.26

Significant positive features in bold. High-loading positive features underlined. Significant negative features are in italics

Table 19: Touts’ evaluation of Sheng’ speakers - Factor Loadings

Less tribalistic
Rough
Trustworthy

Serious

mm
.01 492
,9; .40
216 .21
496 .13

67

Eactgr 3
.05

433
.26
a04

Respectful .03 =9_3 .30

Polite ,2_2_ .06 -. 13
Friendly -. 79 -.27 . 17
Creative .03 £8 -.1 1
Educated .33 .32 .26
Well behaved .27 . l 9 ._8_9_
Law abiding .42 .23 -.58

Significant positive features in bold. High-loading positive features underlined. Significant negative features are in italics

4.3.2 Factor interpretation for speakers

The method of interpretation adopted in this study is comparison of all the
features that load together under each factor group for the different groups of raters.
Generalizations are drawn based on the similarities or peculiarities that can be observed.
Only the significant loadings above .30 are listed in the interpretation while The asterisk

in front of a number indicates its high loading (i.e., .60) and above.

Table 20: Factor 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students Teachers Downmarket Upmarket Touts
Creative *.60 *.77 .58
Friendly .50 *.95 *.91 .45 *—.79
Polite *-.95 .46 *.92
Respectful .54 *.90
L. Abiding .46 .42
Educated *.91 *.82 *.66 .33
Serious *.91 *.78 *.87 .34 *-.96
L. Tribalistic *.83 .34
W. Behaved .54 .36 .42
Trustworthy .37 *-.89
Rough *.79 * .93 * .64

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

 

From table 20, it is evident that each status group has a unique pattern of the
attributes that load on Factor 1 on the rating of Sheng’ speakers. “Creativity” is assumed
to refer to Sheng' speakers' innovative capability. It is interesting that this attribute is only
perceived as significant by the students, teachers, and the Downmarket respondents. Both
Upmarket residents and touts do not associate Sheng’ speakers with innovative ability.
While the Upmarket residents' behavior may be interpreted as their attempt to downplay
any positive ability of those they look down upon, the touts behavior is strange. They are
probably aware that their use of Sheng’ places them at a disadvantage. Therefore its
creativity is perceived negatively because it negates their aspiration for socio-economic
mobility. "Friendly" attribute loads highly on all factor groups, but strangely it loads
negatively on the part of the touts. The students and the Downmarket residents value
Sheng’ as an instrument for solidarity among the speakers. The popularity of Sheng’
among the university students dismisses the myth that it is spoken by people with a
deficiency in mastering standard languages.

Strangely, touts do not find Sheng’ speakers friendly in spite of the fact they are
considered to be the most consistent group in the use of Sheng’. Perhaps they rate the
speakers negatively because to them, the importance of Sheng' is only restricted to the
function it serves within their occupation group. They use it to identify themselves as a
distinct social category, but not for solidarity purpose. It is also possible that they are not
linguistically insecure and hence don’t need to emphasize its affective qualities. They
also rate Sheng’ speakers as tribalistic, badly behaved, rough, untrustworthy, not serious,
but polite and educated. In the percentage score, it was observed that the touts do not like

the language to move from their in-group, because it defines them, negative connotations

69

notwithstanding. Since the touts give a semblance of “organized labour” then the
institutional use of Sheng’ in the matatu industry by the touts functions like a jargon in
other professions. Perhaps the touts reject some positive qualities that can make them
appear “soft” because they derive cover prestige from using Sheng. Under factor one, the
touts seem to be evaluating Sheng’ speakers according to their norms.

According to the Upmarket raters, “trustworthy” forms a negative correlate with
other traits in factor group 1. This is rather odd because the factor contains other positive
attributes like "respectful", "well behaved" and "friendly". This mixed evaluation shows a
group torn between the underlying stereotypes and accommodation. Other raters like
students, teachers and the Downmarket residents prefer to point out the positive
evaluation. Generally, respondents give Sheng' speakers both positive and negative
evaluation. This points to the amelioration of prior harsh attitudes towards Sheng' which

is and indicator of growing acceptance or accommodation.

Table 21: Factor 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students Teachers Downmarket Upmarket Touts
Creative .44 .35 *.88
Friendly .36 *-.88
Polite * .99 *.94
Respectful *.82 *.98 .30 *.93
L. Abiding .30 *.89
Educated *.7O .32
Serious
L. Tribalistic *-.92
W. Behaved *.82 .35 .30
Trustworthy *.94 .54 *.65
Rough *.88 *.66 .40

 

 

 

 

 

 

70

 

Under Factor 2, students continue to rate Sheng' speakers as "friendly" They also
rate them as "well behaved" and "trustworthy and strangely "rough." Apart from "rough",
these other traits do not conform to the traditional stereotypes associated with Sheng’
speakers. This is an indication that students recognize the solidarity role that Sheng' plays
amongst its speakers. Note that "rough" might not be a negative attribute after all, but this
is difficult to establish at the moment. It is interesting that only the Downmarket people
and the touts perceive Sheng’ speakers as educated. These respondents seems to be
adopting a defensive stance as a way of rejecting the stereotype that Sheng’ is for the
poor uneducated people. As pointed out earlier, touts are mostly stereotyped as school
dropouts or those who could not proceed with their education. On the other hand, poverty
in the Downmarket areas prevents the residents from having quality education.

On their part, the teachers have little to report about the education aspect since
majority of them do not speak Sheng', unless they are commenting on the general
speakers of Sheng' or their pupils, mostly because their pupils are at a lower level of
education. It is not clear why “rough” should cluster together with other positive traits
under the students, upmarket people raters and the touts. It is possible that these two
status groups are rating two different categories of speakers or that the trait “rough” does
not bear a negative connotation according to them.

The Downmarket respondents and the touts point out the affective properties of
Sheng’ speakers because they know the stigma their language carries. As pointed out in
the earlier discussion, this is common for people who suffer from linguistic insecurity. In

Factor 2, the touts now rate the Sheng' speakers as "creative" and "respectful," but rejects

71

that they are "less tribalistic.” They also persist in rating the speakers as rough which
emphasizes the role of Sheng' in giving the speakers covert prestige.

The clustering of both the positive and negative traits shows how torn the
Upmarket respondents are. The negative traits can have two interpretations; 1)
stereotypical traits they attribute to the people who speak deep Sheng’, 2) the covert
prestige they want to be associated with when speaking Sheng’ such as toughness and
mischief. Under the first interpretation, then this factor group will be seen to sum up two
classes of speakers of Sheng’, which is very possible with the high status groups. The
mixed evaluation by the teachers can also be taken to refer to two categories of speakers.
Alternatively, the whole cluster can be interpreted negatively to mean that teachers
perceive Sheng’ speakers as manipulative and pretentious. However, there is no sufficient
evidence to lead to this conclusion since the percentage score and the map drawing

indicated the teachers are the most liberal in their evaluation.

Table 22: Factor 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students Teachers Downmarket Upmarket Touts
Creative *.77 .44 .34 *.95
Friendly *.71
Polite *.84
Respectful *.95 .30
L. Abiding *99 .37 -.58
Educated .45 .46
Serious .40 .33
L. Tribalistic *.92 *.93 .40
W. Behaved -.52 *.69 *.93 *.80 *.89
Trustworthy *6]
Rough .41 .36 .32 -.52 -.33

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

 

Just like they did under Factors 1 & 2, the students continue to generally rate the
Sheng’ speakers positively, though there are some inconsistencies with negative loading
of "well behaved" and positive loading of “rough". As for the teachers, Factor one and
factor 3 are almost similar, although attributes highly load on Factor 1 than they do under
factor three. Negative loading of "rough" by the touts is an indication to what I have
pointed out in Factors 1 and 2. At least for the touts, "rough" is negative, but deliberate so
that they it can serve the group function. Note that the negative loading of law abiding on
touts is a reference to the old stereotype of associating Sheng' speakers with wayward
behavior like drugs, sex and petty crime.

Interestingly, "rough" and "Well behaved" have significant loading for all status
groups under factor 3. Strangely, studentsseem to associate Sheng' speakers with
mischief, hence the negative loading of well behaved. On the other hand, the Upmarket
and touts, rate Sheng' speakers as not rough, while all the other groups rate Sheng'
speakers as "rough". I have this feature can either be positively interpreted or negatively
interpreted relative to the referent group.

Unlike other factor groups, there is no mixed evaluation for the Upmarket raters
under Factor group 3. This shows that the Upmarket raters are not totally hostile to
Sheng’ as is often assumed. Under the percentage rating (table 6), they reported favorably
on their use of Sheng’. If this is the case, then their use of Sheng’ would be taken as

having an influence on their positive evaluation under Factor group 3.

4.3.3 Factor loadings: The rating of Sheng’
Evaluation of respondents’ rating of Sheng’ was interpreted separately from that

of the speakers in order to ascertain whether there is a distinction between the speakers

73

and the language. It is possible that raters detest the speakers but like the language or vice
versa. Although Systat analysis extracted more than two factors for some status groups,
only two from each status group were considered in order to maintain uniformity in

generalizations. Tables 23 through 27 show the loading of feature under different factors.

Table 23:Students evaluation of Sheng’ -F actor loadings
Factor 1 Factor 2

Interesting £2 -.1 1
Good -.01 -.83
Attractive fl .08
Respectful :81 . 10
Pleasant .44 .8;
Important Q .49
Inclusive .21 .28
Easy .16 .29
Intimidating fl . 47
Table 24: Teachers evaluation of Sheng’
Balm Em

Easy fl .28
Attractive .07 .29
Pleasant .58 .25
Respectful .27 .44
Interesting .49 .22
Important .05 ._8_1
Intimidating g .07
Inclusive :21 -.01
Good .49 .19

74

Table 25: Downmarket peoples’ evaluation of Sheng‘

factor—1
Respectful L1
Interesting . 18
Good .24
Easy fl
Pleasant .41
Important . 16
Intimidating .51
Inclusive .24
Attractive .7_9

Factor 2

.16
.2é

Table 26: Upmarket people’s evaluation of Sheng’

mm
Important -. 1 6
Attractive .03
Interesting -. 32
Easy ,_82
Intimidating .21
Good .30
Pleasant ,_§_9_
Respectful .54
Inclusive -.96

Table 27: Touts’ evaluation of Sheng’

Em
Intimidating fl
Inclusive fl
Easy -. 12
Attractive .29
Respectful .18

Factor 2

-.44
g
-.95
.17
.21
.51
.04
.20

~24

Factor 2

.23
.21
.9

.91

-. 70

75

Important

Good

Pleasant

Interesting

4.3.4 Factor interpretation for Sheng’

We have observed above in the rating of speakers, that the raters gave Sheng’ speakers a

more positive rating. This might be due to the desire to display fairness by avoiding open

negative evaluation. We hypothesized that this trend will change when it comes

evaluating the language because the raters will evaluating the language and not the

people. This is because people usually mask the stereotypes they hold towards others by

stereotyping the language those people use. Tables 28 and 29 shows that this is hardly the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

case.
Table 28: Factor 1

Students Teachers Downmarket Upmarket Touts
Inclusive *.97 *-.96 *.66
Easy *.88 *.89
Important *.75 .41
Pleasant .44 .58 .41 *.89 *-.95
Attractive *.94 *.79
Good .49 .30
Intimidating * .61 *.93 .51 *.72
Interesting *.62 .49 -.32
Respectful *.87 *.71 .54 .48

 

 

 

 

 

 

A look at the traits that cluster in Factor group 1 in table 28 shows that

respondents give Sheng' a middle-of-the-scale rating. There is no negative rating

76

 

especially among the students, teachers and the downmarket respondents. It is rather
strange "intimidating" fail to load only among the upmarket raters, contrary to
expectation, considering that the middle class is usually hostile to no-standard varieties.
To the students and the touts, Sheng' is important because it is a tool for group solidarity,
but this is not the case for the teachers, the Downmarket raters and the upmarket raters.
This is expected.

The downmarket raters do not consider Sheng' as important because it puts them
at a disadvantage by always betraying their poor residential areas. Moreover, it counters
their efforts of ensuring that their children learn standard language in order to climb up
the socioeconomic ladder. For the Upmarket raters, Sheng' does not serve any useful
purpose apart from indicating that they are at par with other young people when it comes
to linguistic trends. Although they appreciate Sheng's social importance, they understand
its limitations when it comes to other more important pursuits in life.

The teachers' case is more interesting. They teachers always complain that it
complicates their work of teaching standard languages. Their attitudes reflect the
concerns expressed by the Ministry of Education at the end of every year when releasing
the Primary Schools’ National Exam results. For instance, in 2001 Kenya Certificate of
Primary Education (KCPE) results, English composition and Kiswahili insha
(composition) had a nationwide mean score of 33% and 42% respectively, a poor
performance blamed on the encroachment of Sheng’ (The East African Standard
Editorial, December 29, 2001). Their failure to rate Sheng as "important should be

viewed along these lines.

77

Another feature that merit some discussion is the rating of "easy." Perception of
Sheng' as "easy would rationalize its adoption by so many people thus perpetuating the
stereotype that it is a language of lazy unambitious people who cannot master standard
languages. Only the upmarket and the downmarket respondents rate Sheng' as easy,
though they are motivated by different motivations. The Upmarket raters, probably
perceive Sheng' as easy relative to the stande languages. It is also possible that they rate
it as easy in conformity to the stereotype that Sheng' is a corrupted, simplified language
that has no laid down rules (N gesa 2002). Linguistically, this might be hard to conceive,
unless we are only referring to morphology and word formation but there must be a
grammatical pattern, otherwise, it would be hard for the speakers to understand each
other. As things stand, most of the deviance is attributed to vocabulary and not the SVO
order of the sentences like in both English and Ki swahili.

It is not surprising that the downmarket raters will find it easy because it has been
spoken there for a long time. In fact, Sheng' is mostly assumed to have been invented in
the downmarket areas. As for the touts, "easy" does not load because to them, it is not
easy. They adopt it because circumstances force them to. It is the tool of trade. They
actually try to keep Sheng' out of reach of the other people because they want to set
themselves aside. If it became easy, then it would lose its function in their in-group, thus
denying them a crucial tool for their identity. Overall, we observe that under factor 1, the
touts rate Sheng' negatively in conformity with social stigma associated with it.

All the raters apart from the touts seem to emphasize on Sheng’s eloquence that
appeals to speakers under Factor 1, a common characteristic for slang (section 2.5.1).

When rating the Sheng’ speakers, we saw that the touts attach more importance to the

78

covert prestige that they derive from Sheng’. For instance, they do not use Sheng’

because it is "interesting, easy" or "attractive," but because it is intimidating and
inclusive, a clear indication of its in-group value. This is enforced in the loading of

features under factor 2.

Table 29: Factor 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students Teachers Downmarket Upmarket Touts
Inclusive
Easy * .98
Important .49 * . 81 *.91 -.44
Pleasant * . 82
Attractive * .96 * .93 *.91
Good *-.83 .5 1
Intimidating .47 .53 *.97
Interesting *.96 *-.95 -.38
Respectful .44 *-.70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, the upmarket raters give Sheng' a very negative rating under factor 2,
probably because they are rating the Sheng' spoken by outsiders as indicated by the rating
of "intimidating", not "interesting" and not "important." The student give a mixed
evaluation of Sheng’ as "pleasant" and "important" but also not "good" and
"intimidating." The same can be said of the downmarket raters and the touts. It is only the
teachers who give Sheng' a positive rating under factor 2, which is again strange because
they do not use it

While most respondents appreciate that Sheng' 'bring people together', "inclusive"
does not load for any status group. Does this contradict the fact that it has lost its in-group

value? Hardly. The feature “intimidating” takes over as an indicator of in-group rating of

Sheng. "Intimidating" loads under the students, downmarket and the upmarket raters.

79

 

However, this should be interpreted as the outsiders' comment of the kind of Sheng'
spoken by others. A good illustration is the upmarket raters drawing a distinction between
deep Sheng and common Sheng' since the majority only master common Sheng'. Deep
Sheng' is for the 'initiated' and certainly intended to intimidate. The high loading of
“easy” on touts now shows that they are considering themselves as speakers, since they
are presently the most important innovators, Sheng' is easy to them, and they cannot
conceive of any kind of Sheng they cannot master. Since they are highly mobile nature in
the course of their duties, they can keep up to date with the most recent innovations.

To sum up, we see that the two scales both isolate the function of Sheng' as well
as who the raters are rating. We observe the in-group characteristics being emphasized in
factor 1, though they persist in factor two. We also observe that the raters did not rate the
speakers positively and the language negatively as expected, but instead opted for mixed
rating. While this mixed rating might seem as a contradiction, we can conclude that it is a
strategy for giving a fair judgment, rating others from existing stereotypes as well as their
own subjective judgment while at the same time rating themselves without contradicting
themselves. This mixed rating of Sheng' speakers and Sheng' also show that judges have
three categories of speakers in mind. These are everybody in general, the other speakers
or the out—group and the in-group. For the raters who do not speaks Sheng' especially the
teacher, their judgment is more general, though it mostly tends towards the social
stereotyped variety, but they are willing to give the positive rating of Sheng' on a general
level. For the in-group, they rate Sheng' according to their norms, being more fair in their
judgment while rating themselves, but somehow harsh when rating the others. We have

seen for instance that upmarket people will rate Sheng' positively only when considering

80

the kind of Sheng they speak, that is Engsh or the common Sheng' while distrust speakers
of the deep Sheng' while intimidate them. The same can be said of students. For the
downmarket raters, it has to do with the various 'dialects' of Sheng' that are spoken in
different city estates. The touts' negative rating for instance is a matter of personal choice.
They make the choice of using a language they know is not approved by the society
because it serves a value expressive function such as enhancing their freedom and
identity (Ciapopo and Petty, 1982). Another interpretation of this rating would be that the
touts appreciate the importance of standard languages like English which we pointed out
earlier that it is the language of the powerful class and the symbol of upward mobility
while Sheng’ has none of these qualities. In spite of the function it serves in defining their
in-group, they would not like their children to communicate in it because it would stand
in the way of their upward mobility. l

The discussions in this chapter have come out with interesting observations. All
the three methods used in data collection and analysis complementing each other and
finally converge on the same results although some were better in representation of
certain aspects of the discussion. The summary of the major findings will be summed in

the conclusion.

81

5 Conclusions

This study evaluated the different pattern of Nairobi people’s attitudes towards
Sheng’ and the underlying factors influencing those attitudes. The evaluative judgments
have been analyzed with the background of the general language situation in the Kenya in
mind. This has been done within the theoretical frameworks of network structure (Milroy
1980), code-switching and markedness (Myers-Scotton 1993 b, 1992a), accommodation
(Giles and associates 1973), linguistic insecurity (Labov 1972) and their manifestation on

sex, age and status. My three hypotheses are restated below:

i) Women underreport on their use of Sheng’ because they do not want to be
associated with stigmatized speech.

ii) Users of Sheng’ will rate it more favorably than nonusers.

iii) People from the higher social-economic class will tend draw a distinction
between their variety of Sheng’ and the one spoken by their counterparts in

the lower social economic class.

Direct and indirect methods were employed in the study. These included
questionnaires, map drawing, oral interviews and semantic differential scales. Data were
then presented in form of percentage score tables, map figures and factor analysis. The
major finding of this study can be summed up as follows:

Firstly, the downmarket raters exhibit a high degree of linguistic insecurity.
Following hypothesis (ii) we find that they rate Sheng’ and its speakers favorably in
affective dimensions especially in the semantic differential scales and the percentage
scores because they are aware that it is stigmatized. The other raters like the touts and the

students also exhibit minimal insecurity, but the case of the touts must be interpreted with

82

caution because they mask their insecurity by rating Sheng’ negatively. The teachers are
not users of Sheng’ and indeed proscribe its use while the Upmarket raters are torn
between identifying with Sheng’ or maintaining their social distance from the stigmatized
speech.

Secondly, Sheng’ has not yet attained universal acceptance. Nairobi people’s
attitudes towards it continue to be dominated by traditional stereotypes, especially those
of the categories of people mostly associated with its use such as the touts, youth, males
and the Downmarket areas. Hypothesis (iii) highlights the drawing of status different
between the wealthy and the poor and this has been well illustrated through continued
association of the Downmarket estates as the hubs of Sheng’, especially in hand drawn
maps.

Thirdly, women under-participation in Sheng’ is the basis of their negative
attitudes. While it is possible that this is due to pressure from the society, it can also be
attributed to hypothesis (i) where they might be significant participators, but underreport
because they do not want to be associated with the “bad languages”. Overall most of the
respondents still regard the late teens as the most consistent users of Sheng’

Fourthly, there is a high correlation between the raters use of Sheng’ and their
judgments. Raters who use Sheng’ exhibit loyalty in different ways. The Downmarket
raters, who are linguistically insecure are loyal to the language they speak often in their
daily communications and regard it warmly as per hypothesis (ii). They would like it to
be adopted by the majority in order to loose its stigma. The touts on the other hand
negates hypothesis (ii) and exhibit their loyalty by attempting to keep their language

away from the outsiders.

83

In the same context the popular culture has been shown to play an important role
in influencing peoples attitudes especially amongst the touts. Since the touts engage in a
conscious effort to set themselves apart, the matatu culture can be regarded as an
antisociety which generates Sheng’ as its antilanguage (Halliday 1978). The touts’
behavior seems to contradict my hypothesis that the users of a language would be loyal to
their language and therefore rate it more favorably. Loyalty to one’s language is therefore
not always a measure of linguistic insecurity. Moreover, positive ratings do not always
indicate linguistic loyalty as data from the touts illustrate.

In conclusion, the attitude patterns of the five status groups used in this study can
be accounted for within the model of the sociology of deviance that identifies four types
of social behavior (St. Clair 1982).

(i) the pure deviant: perceived deviant by everyone.

(ii) the conforrnist: conforms to social norms and is not perceived as deviant.

(iii) the secret deviant: Usually in the power group. He breaks the rule with
impunity knowing because he can’t be penalized.

(iv) the falsely accused: tries to respect the law still regarded as deviant.

Under these categories, the non-apologetic matatu touts fall under the first
category. Instead of the seeking to alter traditional stereotypes about themselves, they
emphasize those stereotypes and rate Sheng’ negatively and thus wish to cultivate a
rebellious image of themselves. They know that accommodation would improve their
social acceptance, but still want to maintain their identity. The teachers are the
conforrnists who are charged with the responsibility of teaching children the standard
languages. Some of them speak Sheng’, but they must subvert their preferences in order

to conform to the popular attitudes as per the requirements of their profession (see poem

84

in appendix iv). The Upmarket raters, though liable to underreport as a result of the
negative caricatures attributed to Sheng’ and its speakers are the secret deviants. They
can use the stigmatized forms at will because they are in the privileged class and nobody
would consider them as deviant. On the other hand, the Downmarket raters are falsely
accused. While they are being rated, they are branded with all the negative stereotypes
associated with their neighborhoods. The language they use is only a victim of the
people’ biases towards where they hail from. The students fall in most of these
categories.

This study combines the traditional and current methods in the analysis of
language attitudes and speech variation and will make its contribution to a linguistic field
that has not been given adequate attention. ~Although the study will add to the growing
interest in the study of Sheng’, the size of the respondents might not be sufficient to draw
explicit generalization. This being only an initial study of attitudes towards Sheng’, future
research should vet the respondents to minimize cases of overlap in respondents’ role
status. A larger size of the respondents and careful classification of the status groups
would greatly overcome some of these limitations. More study also needs to focus on the
aspects of youth and popular culture and the pattern of peoples attitudes towards different
versions of Sheng’, both in Nairobi and other Urban areas. This study has only laid a

good background for future research on language attitudes towards Sheng’.

85

APPENDIX I

Nairobi Peoples Perception of Sheng’

Personal Information.
1. Please circle you age bracket.
(a) 18-24 (h) 25-29 (c) 30-34 ((1) 35-39 (e) 40 and above.

2.Sex: Male Female

3. Please state the regions (district/province) where;
(i) You were born ...................................................
(ii)You went to Primary School ...................................................
(iii)You attended secondary school ...................................................
(iv) You attended post-secondary ...................................................

4. Give the names of neighborhoods you have resided in Nairobi starting with the most
recent.
(a) ...................................................
(b) ...................................................
(c) ...................................................
(d) ...................................................
(e) ...................................................

5. Write down the languages that you use beginning with the one you use most to the one
you use least.

6. Which language(s) do you use in the following situations? Please fill those that apply
(a) speaking to your parents .............................
(b) speaking to your children .............................
(c) speaking to your age mates ..............................
(d) addressing your brothers and sisters ..........................
(e) talking to the store man, grocery owners etc ...........................

7. Do you know Sheng’? Yes No

8. If Yes, do you speak it?

86

Thank you for your responses.
I will now give you a sketch of Nairobi and want you to identify clusters of areas where
you know or think Sheng’ is spoken and draw circles around those areas.

People's perceptions
This section will be tape recorded and will take place after identifying where Sheng’ is

spoken on the sketches of Nairobi maps. This questionnaire will only be with the
interviewer.

1. According to you what are the languages that make up Sheng’

2. Why do you think Sheng’ is spoken in these areas?

3. Why have you not identified these areas as places where Sheng’ is spoken.
4. Which percentage of Nairobi People do you think actively speak Sheng’?
5. Out of all speakers of Sheng’ in Nairobi, give the percentage of

males
females

6. What percentage of Sheng’ speakers do you think are in the following age-groups:

7-1 5 ...... %
1 6-20 ...... %
21-25 ...... %
26-3 5 ...... %
above 3 5 ...... %
Total 100%

7. Why do you think people speak Sheng’ instead of the official languages or other
indigenous languages?

8. Who do you think should use Sheng’?

9. What would you say is the reason people who were using Sheng’ suppress/stop using
it?

10. Do you accept that using Sheng’ affect performance 1n Swahili and English among
School going children?

11. How would you take it if your parents used Sheng’ constantly? Do they complain of
your using Sheng’?
or
12. Do you consider it OK for your children to speak Sheng’? Why?
13. What do you feel if people speak a language that you cannot understand?

14. Is there any comment you would like to make about Sheng’?

87

1. If you were asked to rate the speakers of Sheng’ in these qualities how would you rate
them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 6 5 4 3 2 l
Respectful unrespectful
Trustworthy untrustworthy
Rough gentle
Polite impolite
Creative Uncreative
Law-abiding Law-breakers
Less tribalistic Tribalistic
Friendly unfriendly
Educated uneducated.
Well-behaved badly behaved.
Serious Not serious
Admirable Not admirable.

 

 

 

2. Now rate Sheng’ as a Language

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Interesting boring
Good bad
pleasant unpleasant
Easy difficult
Intimidating friendly
Inclusive exclusive
Respectful disrespectful
Attractive Unattractive
Important Not Important

 

 

3. In the following statements, say whether, you agree, you disagree or don't know.

(a) Sheng’ should only be spoke by people who are under twenty one ........................
(b) Parents should generally not use Sheng’ ........................
(c) Children shouldn't speak Sheng’ with their parents or elders ........................
(d) After English and Swahili, I would rate Sheng’ third ........................
(e) Sheng’ should be banned completely ........................
(t) Sheng’ deserves to be promoted. ........................
(g) Within some few years Sheng’ will replace indigenous languages ........................

(h) Within some few years, Sheng’ will have died out ........................

Thank you very much for you participation.

88

APPENDIX II

Maoni Ya Watu wa Nairobi Kuhusu Sheng’

Habari za Mhojiwa.

1.

7.

8.

Tafadhali chora duara katika kiwango cha umri wako.
(a) 18-24 25-29 (c) 30-35 (d) 35-39 (e) 40, na kuendelea.

. Uwana: Mwanaume Mwanamke

. Tafadhali taja sehemu (wilaya ama mkoa) ambapo:

(i) Ulizaliwa ..............................
(ii) Ulisomea shule ya msingi ..............................
(iii) Ulisomea shule ya upili ..............................
(iv) Ulisomea baada ya sekondari ..............................

. Andika majina ya mitaa ambayo umeishi mjini Nairobi ukianza na wa hivi karibuni au

unapoishi sasa hivi.

(a) ......................................
(b) ......................................
(c) .......................................
(d) ......................................
(e) ......................................

. Andika Lugha ambazo unazungumza ukianza na ile unayotumia sana na umalizie na

ile ambayo hauitumii sana.

(1) .......................................
(2) .......................................
(3) .......................................
(4) .......................................
(5) .......................................

. Unatumia lugha gani katika mazingira haya. Jaza zile ambazo zinakuhusu.

(a) Kuzungumza na wazazi wako ............................................
(b) Kuzungumza na watoto wako ............................................
(c) Kuzungumza na watani wako ............................................
(d) Kuzungumza na ndugu zako ............................................
(e) Kuzungumza na mwenye duka, mama wa soko. nk ..............................

J c wewe Unaielwa Sheng’? Ndiyo Hapana

Kama unaielewa, Unaizungumza? Ndiyo Hapana

Asante kwa majibu yako

89

Sasa Nitakupa Ramani ya mitaa ya Nairobi. Nataka utambue sehemu Sheng’
Inakozungumzwa, halafu uchore duara kwenye sehemu hizo

Maoni Ya Watu

Sehemu hii itanaswa katika kinasa sauti. Itaanza baada ya sehemu hizo mbili za hapo
awali. Nakala ya maswali itakuwa ma mhoj aji pekee.

1. Kulingana nawe, lugha zinazojumulisha Sheng’ ni zipi?
2. Unaweza kutoa sababu gani za Sheng’ kuzungumzwa sehemu ulizotambua
3. Kwa nini ulisema baadhi ya sehemu hizi Sheng’; haizungumzwi?
4. Unafikiri ni asilimia gani ya watu wa Nairobi inayozungumza Sheng’
5. Kwa wazungumzaji wote wa Sheng’, Ni asilimia gani:
Wanawake

Wanaume

6. Kati ya wazumzaji wa Sheng’ ni asilimia gani iliyoko kwenye viwango hivi vya umri?

7-15 .....% ~
16-20 ..... %
21-25 .....%
26-35 ..... %
Zaidi ya 35 ..... %
Jumla 100%

7. Unafikiria ni kwa nini watu wanatumia Sheng’ badala ya lugha za Kiswahili na
Kiingereza au lugha za kiasili?

8. Kulingana nawe, ni akina nani ambao wanastahili kutumia Sheng’
9. Kwa nini watu waliokuwa wakizungumza Sheng’ huacha kuizungumza?

10. Je, unakubaliana na dai kwamba utumiaji wa Sheng’ huathiri matokeo ya mitihani ya
Kiswahili na Kiingereza shuleni?

11. Kama wazazi wako wakitumia Sheng’, kwa mawasiliano yao ya kila siku
utaichuliaj e? I e wazazi wako huteta ukitumia Sheng’?

12. Je huona ikiwa sawa watoto wako wakitumia Sheng’ Kwa nini?
13. Je unaona ikiwa vibaya kwa watu kuzungumza lugha ambayo huielewi?

14. Je ungependa kutoa moni mengine yoyote kuhusu swala la Sheng’

9O

Tafadhali wape alama wazungumzaji wa Sheng’ kutokana na sifa ulizopewa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Wenye heshima wasio heshima
Wanaaminika hawaheshiki
Wapole wakorofi
Wanyenyekevu wasonyenyekea
Wabunifu si wabunifu
Watii Sheria wasiotii sheria
Wasio ukabila wenye ukabila
Wenye urafiki wasio urafrki
Walioelimika wasioelimika
Wenye nidhamu wasio nidhamu
Wamakinifu Wasio maakini

 

 

Sasa ipe alama Lugha ya Sheng’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 6 5 4 3 2 l
Inafurahisha inakera/inaudhi
Nzuri mbaya
Inapendeza ' isiyopendeii
Nyepesi ngumu
Ina urafiki inati sha
Inaunganisha inatengenisha
Ina heshima haina heshima
Inavutia haivutii.
Muhimu Siyo muhimu.

 

 

Kwa kauli hizi, sema iwapo unakubali, inakataa au hujui

(a) Sheng’ inastahili kuzungumzwa na watu walio chini ya miaka 21 .......................
(b) Wazazi hawastahili kuzungumza Sheng’ ......................
(c) Vij ana hawastahili kuzunguzia wazazi wao na wazee kwa Sheng’ ......................
(d) Baada ya Kiingereza na Kiswahili, Sheng’ ni ya tatu ......................
(e) Sheng’ inastahili kupigwa marufuku .......................
(i) Sheng’ inastahili kuendelezwa .......................
(g) Miaka michache ij ayo Sheng’ itachukua nafasi ya lugha za kienyeji ......................
(h) Baada ya miaka michache, Sheng’ itaangamia kabisa. ......................

Asante sana kwa Kuhudhuria Kwako.

91

APPENDIX III

USE OF LANGUAGES AMONGST THE RESPONDENTS

 

Respondent’s

Languages Spoken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Index & sex English Kiswahili Sheng’ Others

A M YES YES YES KIKUYU, SLANG

B M YES YES NO KIKAMBA, SABAOT
C M YES YES YES --

D F YES YES YES KIKUYU, SLANG

E F YES YES YES KIKUYU

F F YES YES YES KIKUYU

G F YES YES NO DHOLUO

H F YES YES YES KIKUYU

I M YES YES NO KH(UYU

J M YES YES YES KIKUYU

K M YES YES NO KIKUYU

L F YES YES YES KIKUYU

M F YES YES NO KIIVIERU, KIEMBU, KIKUYU
N M YES YES YES DHOLUO

O M YES YES YES KIBUKUSU, KIMERU
P F YES YES YES KIKUYU

Q M NO YES NO KIMARAGOLI

R F YES YES NO KHVIERU

S M YES YES YES LUHYA, ITALIAN

T M YES YES YES DHOLUO

U F YES YES YES KIKUYU

V F YES YES YES KISOMALI

W F YES YES NO --

X M YES YES YES KIKUYU

Y M YES YES YES KILUHYA, KIKUYU

 

 

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z M YES YES NO KIKISII

AA M YES YES YES KILUHYA, KIKUYU, KIKAMBA
BB M NO YES YES KIKAMBA, KIKUYU

CC M YES YES YES KIKUYU

 

 

 

Key: The embolden italic “YES” on the column of Sheng’ means that the respondents

speak Sheng’ marginally

93

 

APPENDIX IV
KISWAHILI N AIRQBI

Palipojaa shabahi, wazee na mabenati
Nikasalimu kibibi, kanijibu eti fiti!
Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Kibibi kasonga kwangu, nimpe kiti asiti
Nikaona mbele yangu, kwa mapozi kajiseti
Sikupatwa na uchungu, wala chembe kibuhuti
Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Kumuliza wenda wapi, kanijibu marikiti
Kwenye kazi au vipi, jibu lake nina deti
Ana majibu mafupi, taimu hawesti
Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Mtu huyu hushangaza, lugha yake sijageti
Hataki kunisikiza, ati mimi sina senti

Bila doo aeleza, yu tayari kunibuti

Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Punde dakika kidogo, nikaanza utafiti
Naona ana mikogo, na haogopi umati
Hawataki wa ushago, wenye koti bila noti
Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Ni kibibi maridadi, ila mambo tofauti

Asema mboga si fudi, bwana kunipa donti
Chuma mobu sina budi, kujaza langu poketi
Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Ana fujo hatulii, sijaonapo laiti

Arifu hunibaii, kamsosi hata switi

Ebu acha uchalii, uchi homu kwa kufuti
Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Na kutaka kualee, akwasha sigareti
Harnuogopi madhee, asije kumripoti
Pegi mbele ya fadhee, mkali kama ghosti
Vijana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Alipozidi udhia, nikaanza kumsweti
Naye akaniwevia, kuniona simfati
Sistee kaingia, kwa motii kalosti

Vij ana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

94

Nikabaki kudangana la kusema silipati
Lugha zetu kulingana, hakuna japo katiti
Ndipo hatukwelewana, hadi kuenda benati
Vij ana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Kudadisi kwa makini, tabia na harakati

Za Vijana wa mjini, zina nyingi atiati
Tafadhali jikanyeni, ni huu ndio wakati
Vij ana na mabenati, kipi Kiswahili hiki?
Hunishangaza jamani, tuelezana kwa dhati
Nairobi mitaani, pa watu watanashati
Panasemwa lugha gani, na kanuni haifatil
Vij ana na mabenati, Kipi Kiswahili hiki?

Walla bin Walla Malenga wa ziwa kuu

95

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdulaziz, M and K. Osinde. 1997. “Sheng’ and English: Development of mixed code
among the urban youth in Kenya”. International Journal of the sociology of
Language. Walter de Gruyter: 43-63

Adegbija, E. 1994. Language Attitudes in Sub-Saharan Afiica. Multilingual Matters
limited. Clevendon Philadelphia

Appel Rene and P. Muysken. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism. Edward Arnold
London

Andersson, L and P. Trudgill. 1990. Bad language. Basil Blackwell Limited, Oxford.

Baetens, P. 1982. Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Tieto Limited, England. Clevendon
Avon

Baker, Collins. 1992. Attitudes to language. Multilingual Matters limited. Clevendon
Philadelphia.

Bakker, P. 1994. “Pidgins” in Arends, Pieter J. Muysken and N. Smith (eds.)Pidg1'ns
And Creoles: An introduction. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam
Philadelphia.

Bakker P and P. Muysken. 1994. “Mixed Language and Language Intertwining” in J.
Arends, Pieter Muysken and N. Smith (eds) Pidgins and Creoles: An
Introduction. John Benjamins. Amsterdam Philadelphia.

Baugh, B. 1998. “Language, Education, and the Law: Educational reform for African-
American Language Minority Students” in Mufwene S. S. John R. Rickford, Guy
Bailey and John Baugh. Ed. Afiican—American English: Structure, History and
Use. Routledge: London: 282-301

Biber, D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge

Bogonko, SN. 1988. “Kiswahili and Independence in East Africa”. In Jude J. Ongong’a
and Kenneth R. Gray Eds. Bottlenecks to National Identity: Ethnic Co-operation
Towards nation Building: 1 7-32. Proceedings of the third PWPA eastern African
Regional Conference Held in Mombasa Kenya Sept. 15-18, 1988. Masaki
Publishers. Nairobi.

Brown P. and SC Levinson. 1978. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

96

 

Burj a, J. 1974. “Pumwani: Language usage in an urban Muslim community”. In
Language in Kenya: Eds. Oxford University Press. Nairobi.

Burke, P and R. 1995. Languages and Jargon: Contributions to a Social History of
Languages. Polity Press. Cambridge.

Burling, R. 1970. Man ’s Many Voices: Language and its Cultural Context. Holt Reinhart
and Wilson, New York.

Ciapopo, J.T and R. E. Petty. 1982. “Language variables, attitudes, and persuasion”.
In Ryan EB. and Howard Giles (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation:
Social and Applied Contexts: 189-207. Edward Arnold, London.

Gardner-Chloros, P. 1991. Language Selection and Switching In Strasbourg. Claredon
Press, Oxford.

Downes, W. 1998. Language and Society (Second edition). Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.

Eastman, C. 1984. “Modern Swahili: Is there a generation gap?” in J. Maw and Parkin D.
(eds) Swahili Language and Society: Papers From The workshop held at the
school of Oriental and African studies (1982) Afro-Pub. Wien.

Fasold. R. 1984. lhe Sociolinguistics of Society: Introduction to Sociolinguistics Vol.
Basil Blackwell inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Fawcett, RP. 1970. “The medium of education in the lower primary school in Africa
with special reference to Kenya” in Language in Education in Eastern Afiica: 51-
69. Papers from the first eastern African conference on language and linguistics.
Oxford University Press. Nairobi.

Gachukia E. 1970. “The teaching of vernacular languages in Kenya” in T.P. Gorman
(ed.) Language in Education in East A fiica: 18-24

Giles, H., D.M. Taylor and R.Y Bourhis. 1973. “Towards a Theory of Interpersonal
accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society:2
[99-192

Giles, H. and P. Powesland. 1975. “Accommodation Theory” in Coupland N. and
Adam Jaworski 1997 (eds) Sociolinguistics: A Reader 232-239. St. Martin’s
Press, New York.

Gorman T.P. 1970. “Education Implications of Multilingualism in Eastern Africa” in T.P
Gorman, (ed.) Language in Education in East Africa: 1-12.

Gorman, T.P. 1974a. “Patterns of language use among the school children and their
parents” in W.H. Whiteley (ed.) Language in Kenya: 351-396. OUP Nairobi.

97

Gorrnan, T.P. 1974b. “The development of language policy in Kenya with particular
reference to the educational system” in W.H. Whiteley (ed) Language in Kenya:
39 7-455.

Halliday M.A.K. 1978. Language as a Social semiotic: The social interpretation of
Language and Meaning. University park Press: Baltimore

Harries, L. 1975. “The nationalization of Swahili in Kenya”. Papers presented at the
African Studies Conference at New York University on Feb 17-18

Hartley, L. and D. Preston. 1999. “The names of US English” in Tony Bex and
Richard J Watts (eds), Standard English, London: Routledge 207-238.

Hewstone, M. and H. Giles. 1986. “Social groups and social stereotypes” in
Coupland N. and Adam J aworski 1997 (eds) Sociolinguistics: A Reader 270-283.
St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Ireri Mbaabu 1977. New Horizons In Kiswahili: A Synthesis in Developments, Research
and Literature. Kenya Literature Bureau, Nairobi

1996. Language Policy in east Africa: A Dependency lheory Perspective.
Education Research and Publications, Nairobi.

 

Karanja, MN. 1993. Miaka 50 Jela. Heinemann Nairobi.

Kiama Boby. 1990. ‘Sheng’: Monstrosity or tool of unity?’ Kenya Times 11.11.1990
Nairobi

Kembo-Sure. 1995. “Survey of the cross-cultural problems of English use in Kenya” in
Kwadzo Senanu and Drid Williams (eds), Creative Use of Language in Kenya.
Jomo Kenyatta Foundation: Nairobi. 69-83.

Lab ov, W. 1972. Language in The inner City: studies in Black English Vernacular.
University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.

Macaulay, R.K.S. 1997. Standards and Variation in Urban Speech. John Benjamins
Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

Maillu, D. 1989. Without Kiinua Mgongo. Maillu Publishing House Limited, Nairobi.

Makhundu, K.D. 1995. “An introduction to Flaaitaal’ in R. Mesthrie (ed), Language and
the Social History: Studies in South Afiican Sociolinguistics. David Philips
Publishers (Pty) limited, Claremont

Mazrui, A. A and A. M. Mazrui. 1995. Swahili State and society: lhe political
economy of an African Language, East African Educational Publishers, Nairobi.

98

Mazrui, Alamin. 1995. “Slang and code switching: the case of Sheng’ in Kenya”.
A frikanische Arbeitspapiere, Koln. Pp

Mesthrie, R. 1992. “Fanagalo in colonial Natal” in R.K. Herbert (ed), Language and
Society in A fiica: Theory and Practice of Sociolinguistics. Witwatersl and
University Press, Witwatersland.

Milroy, J and Leslie Milroy. 1985. Authority in Language: Investigating Language
Prescription and Standardization. Routl edge and Keegan Paul, London.
Milroy, L. 1980. Language and Social Network. Basil Blackwell Publisher, London.

Moga, J and D. Fee. 2000. Sheng’Dictionary, Third Edition. Ginseng Publishers,
Nairobi.

Mungai Mutonya. 1997. Language Attitudes of Educated A fiican Towards Varieties of
A fiican English. M.A. Thesis. Michigan State University.

Mwangi wa Kariuki. 1986. Determinants of Language Choice by Middle Level Managers
in the Kenyan Public Sector. M.A Thesis. Michigan State University.

Myers-Scotton. 1993 a. Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Code Switching.
Claredon Press, Oxford.

Myers-Scotton. 1993b. Social Motivations For Code Switching: Evidence from Afiica.
Oxford University Press, New York.

Myers-Scotton. 1992a. “Code Switching in Africa: A model of the social functions of
code relation” in Herbert K.R (ed.) Language and Society in Afiica. Witwtersland
University Press, Witwatersland.

Myers-Scotton 1992b. “Code switching as a mechanism of deep borrowing: Language
shift and language dea ” in M. Brenzinger (ed), Language Death: Factual and
Theoretical Exploration with Special Reference to East Afi'ica. Mouton de
Gruyter; Berlin.

Myers-Scotton. 1991. Simplification: Not the best explanation for two Language changes
in Nairobi Swahili” in J. Blommaert (ed.), Swahili Studies: Essays in honor of
Marcel Van Spaanndonck. Academia Press: Ghent.

Ngesa, Mildred. 2002. ‘And Sheng’ lives on. . . .’ m magazine Feruary ll-february 17
2002 issue of The East Afiican Standard. Nairobi.

Ngugi wa Thiong’o. 1986. Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language. James
Curney Publishers: London.

99

Niedzielski, N and D. Preston. 2000. Folk Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter; Berlin.

Ntshangashe, D.K. 1995. “Indaba yami i-straight: Language and Language practices in
Soweto” in R. Mesthrie (ed.) Language and the social History: The study in the
South African Sociolinguistics. David Philips Publishers (Pty) Limited.

Claremont.

Ochieng, Philip. 1990. Build a Sheng’ institute, wage war on tribalism. ’Kenya Times
[0/08/1990. Nairobi

Osinde Ken. 1986. Sheng An Investigation into the Social and Structural aspects of an
evolving Language ” B.A. Thesis, University of Nairobi.

Osinde Ken. 1990. In John Rogoiyo’s article ‘After Sheng’, here comes Engsh
Craze’. Daily Nation, August 11, 1990. Nairobi

Parkin, J .D.1974. “Language Switching in Nairobi” in W.H. Whiteley (ed.) Language in
Kenya, Oxford University Press: Nairobi.

Preston, DR. 1988. “Change in the perception of language varieties” in J. F isiak (ed)
Historical Dialectology: Regional and Social. Mouton de Gruyter; Berlin 47 5-
504.

Preston D.R. 1993. “Folk dialectology” in Dennis R. Preston (ed), American Dialect
Research. John Benjamins Publishing House: Philadelphia. 332-3 77.

Preston, DR. 1996. “Where the worst English is spoken” in E. Schneider (ed), Focus on
the USA. John Benjamins: Amsterdam

Preston DR. 2000. “A renewed proposal for the study of folk linguistics” in J.K. Peyton,
P. Griffen, W.Wolfram and R.Fasold (eds), Language in Action: New Studies in

society. Papers presented to Roger W. Shuy), Hampton Press, Creeskill: NY. 113-
139.

Rhoads, J. 197 7. Linguistic Diversity and Language Belief in Kenya. The Special Position
of Kiswahili. Syracuse University, New York.

Rocha Chimera. 1998. Kiswahili: Past, Present and Future Horizons. Nairobi University
Press: Nairobi.

Somi g, K. 1981. Lexical innovation: A Study of Slang, Colloquialism and Casual Speech.
John Benjamins: Amsterdam.

St Clair R.N.1982. “From social history to language attitudes” in E. B Ryan and Howard
Giles. Attitudes Towards Language Variations: Social and applied Contexts. 164-

100

 

174

Street RE and R. Hopper Jr. 1982. “A model of speech style evaluation” in BB.
Ryan and Howard Giles. Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and
applied Contexts. 1 75-188.

Wallah Bin Wallah. 1988. Malenga wa Ziwa Kuu: Maswali na Istillahi za Kifasihi.
Heinemann, Nairobi.

Wambua Sammy. 1987. ‘15 Sheng’ culturally acceptable?’ Kenya Times 12./12/198 7.
Nairobi

Wanjala CL. 1988. “Culture and the nation state” in Jude J Ongong’a and Kenneth R.
Gray (eds), Bottlenecks to National Identity: Ethnic C o-operation Towards
Nation Building. Masaki Publishers: Nairobi.

Williams, F, N. Hewett, R. Hopper, L. Miller, R. Naremore and J. Whitehead. 1976
Explorations of the Linguistic Attitudes of Teachers. Newbury House
Publishers Inc., Rowley, Massachusetts.

Whiteley W.H. 1969. Swahili: The rise of a national Language. Methuen and Co.
London '

IOl

 

‘9.

 

      

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

11 11 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111

30250