THESIS CHAPTERS, REFERENCES, APPENDIX 1&2&3

Universiteit Gent

Afrikaanse Talen en Culturen

Academiejaar 2007-2008

‘Tukipambe Kiswahili’ and ‘Speak English’

The hegemony and legitimacy of English in Tanzania from a (semi) macro and micro perspective

Promotor: Prof. Dr. S. D’hondt

Masterproef, voorgelegd voor het behalen van de graad van Master in de

Afrikaanse Talen en Culturen door MAGALIE CALLEBAUT

“Language of instruction (LOI) is one of the most far-reaching and significant

features of any education system. The language of instruction in any society is also

the language of hegemony and power…LOI in the home language or mother

tongue is an instrument for the cultural and scientific empowerment of people. Its

denial signifies the social and cultural inferiority of the culture and people whose

mother-tongue-use is denied…Struggles and processes for the revision of LOI

policies mirror larger political and social struggles” (Prah, 2003: 17).

I

Acknowledgement

The research and the writing of this dissertation was a challenging process, full of exciting adventures and disheartening frustrations. I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who supported, guided, and inspired me along the way.

My field research was funded by a VLIR-UOS grant, and I would like to thank them for the opportunity and privilege to do this research. I am also grateful to the 'Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology' (COSTECH) and the 'Ministry of Education and Vocational Training' (MoEVT) for granting me permission to undertake the study. Many thanks goes to the University of Dar es Salaam for allowing me to use its libraries and HakiElimu for providing me with useful information on education in Tanzania. My great appreciation goes to all teachers, staff members and students of the Hekima Waldorf School, Kenton High School, and Zanaki Secondary School for tolerating a stranger in their midst and making me feel welcome. Their willingness to participate in my research went beyond the call of duty. Mr. Basimaki, Mrs. Agnes, and Mr. Otieno deserve special mention for the guidance, support and trust they gave me. I am also greatly indebted to the many academicians of the University of Dar es Salaam who made time available for interviews and great conversations. Their perspectives and insights have guided and challenged my thinking, substantially enhancing my understanding of the issue. My special appreciation goes to Dr. Qorro for her invaluable advice and helping me establish contacts. I wish also to thank Prof. Rwezaura, who facilitated the process of obtaining permission from the MoEVT to conduct this research, without which this dissertation would not have been possible. Special indebtedness and appreciation is addressed to my translator and friend Daina for her moral support and countless hours of translating. As my fellow volunteer at the Green Door Home in Dar es Salaam, Ilona kept me sane throughout the more stressful days, forcing me to laugh at even the most challenging moments. I treasure our times together and thank her for the friendship and encouragement she gave me. In addition, I want to thank all the Green Door Home

watoto. Not only have they inspired me to conduct this research, but they have also inspired me to become a better friend and person.

It goes without saying that this work would not have been possible without the support of my friends and family. I thank Julie, Stefanie and Ka(ju)kaan for standing by my side throughout this journey, even though it was not always easy. Special thanks and love go to Chris, for being their always and believing in me. I also thank him for editing this work and for his unwavering confidence. And last but certainly not least, I thank my mom, dad and stepmom for allowing me to become the person I am today, for letting me go to forge my own path, but always being there in case I took a wrong turn. The confidence to follow my dreams is solely attributable to their unconditional love and support.

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.....................................................................................................................Acknowledgement I

......................................................................................................................Table of contents II

...............................................................................Chapter 1: General Introduction 1

..................................................................................................................1. Personal preface 1

..................................................................2. Situating the study: relevance and assumptions 2

............................................................................................3. Outline and research questions 3

......................................................................................................................4. Methodologies 4

.........................................................................................4.1. Overview of the fieldwork 4

.....................................................................................4.2. The ethnographic approach 5

..................................................................................4.2.1. Documentary sources 5

...................................................................................4.2.2. Open field interviews 6

..............................................................................4.2.3. Classroom observations 7

..............................................................................................................4.3. The schools 8

...................................................................................4.3.1. Selecting the schools 8

............................................................................4.3.2. Zanaki Secondary School 9

..............................................................................4.3.3. Hekima Waldorf School 10

....................................................................................4.3.4. Kenton High School 11

..........................................................................................................4.4. Data analysis 11

Chapter 2: Tanzania’s language-in-education policy from a macro-level

......perspective: analyzing language ideologies and the hegemony of English 13

.........................................................................................................................1. Introduction 13

......................................................................................2. The language-in-education policy 14

.............................................................................................2.1. Historical background 14

...............................................................2.1.1. The rise and spread of Kiswahili 14

.........................................................................2.1.2. Colonial language policies 14

................................................................................2.1.3. Elimu ya Kujitegemea 17

........................................2.2. Language-in-education today: continuity and problems 21

......................................3. English-in-education in Tanzania: analyzing language ideologies 25

.......................................................3.1. Language ideologies and English in the world 27

.......................................3.1.1. English and globalization: the spread of English 27

III

..........................3.1.2. English and national development: linguistic imperialism 29

....................................................3.1.3.English and modernity: a colonial legacy 34

.......................................................3.2. Language ideologies and English in Tanzania 38

............................................3.2.1. English, success and status: linguistic capital 39

......................................................3.2.2. English is education: private education 44

..........................................................................................................................4. Conclusion 47

Chapter 3: The policy in (inter)action: (de)constructing and negotiating

.................(language) legitimacy in the micro-politics of classroom interaction 49

.......................................................................................1. Introduction: from macro to micro 49

...........................................................................2. The role of semi-macro language politics 50

.....................................................3. ‘Bilingual’ classroom interaction: theoretical framework 53

...................................................................................3.1. Code-switching: a definition 53

....................................................................................................3.2. Previous studies 54

....................................................................................3.3. CA and institutional setting 55

............................................................3.4. Code-switching as a contextualization cue 57

......................................................3.5. Fingerprints of ‘bilingual’ classroom interaction 59

..............................................................................................3.5.1. ‘Bilingualism’ 59

............................................................................3.5.2. Interactional architecture 60

...........................................................................3.5.3. Dimensions of legitimacy 65

....................................4. Micro-politics: constructing and negotiating (language) legitimacy 66

................................................................4.1. Indexing legitimacy through frame shifts 66

...............................4.2. Legitimate (language) knowledge and the pedagogical frame 69

..............................................................................4.2.1. Sequential organisation 69

............................................................4.2.2. Structural versus ideological repair 75

...............................................4.3. Language legitimacy, authority, identity and culture 82

.........................................................................4.3.1. Participation and authority 82

................................................4.3.2. Turn taking and deconstructing legitimacy 85

...................4.3.3. Identity, authority and legitimacy: membership categorization 88

...................................................4.3.4. Authority, English, culture and textbooks 92

..........................................................................................................................5. Conclusion 98

...................................................Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations 99

..............................................................................................................References 102

IV

............................................Appendix 1: Transcriptions classroom interaction 115

...............................................................................................................Transcript symbols: 115

......................................................................................Appendix 1A: Transcription 1 116

......................................................................................Appendix 1B: Transcription 2 123

......................................................................................Appendix 1C: Transcription 3 128

......................................................................................Appendix 1D: Transcription 4 136

......................................................................................Appendix 1E: Transcription 5 142

......................................................................................Appendix 1F: Transcription 6 143

......................................................................................Appendix 1G: Transcription 7 146

......................................................................................Appendix 1H: Transcription 8 148

........................................................................................Appendix 1I: Transcription 9 150

.....................................................................................Appendix 1J: Transcription 10 151

.....................................................................................Appendix 1K: Transcription 11 153

.....................................................................................Appendix 1L: Transcription 12 155

.......................................................................Appendix 2: Open field interviews 157

..........................................................................................2A: Martha Qorro (UDSM) 157

....................................................................................2B: Michael Kadeghe (UDSM) 160

..............................................................................2C: Saida Yahya-Othman (UDSM) 163

...........................................................................................2D: Yared Kihore (UDSM) 163

..............................................................................2E: Josephat Rugemalira (UDSM) 166

................................................................................2F: Casmir Rubagumya (UDSM) 168

..............................................................................................................2G: Teacher 1 168

..............................................................................................................2H: Teacher 2 170

............................................................................................................2I: Teacher 3-4 171

...............................................................................................................2J: Teacher 5 174

..............................................................................................................2K: Teacher 6 175

...............................................................................................................2L: Teacher 7 176

..............................................................................................................2M: Teacher 8 178

.............................................................................................Appendix 3: Pictures 179

Chapter 1: General Introduction

1. Personal preface

In 2007, I volunteered at the 'Green Door Home' orphanage in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

While at the orphanage, I organized semi-school activities in order to improve the children’s

English and maths skills. Given that the language of instruction in Tanzanian schools is

English, the corresponding activities at the orphanage were also carried out in that language.

In fact, in Tanzania, all private and public post-primary education uses English as a medium

of instruction. Kiswahili is used in public (pre) primary education.

During the daily reading and maths exercises at the orphanage, I was captivated by two

interesting observations concerning language-in-education policy and practice. First, I

noticed that even though the children I taught had a relatively competent proficiency in

English, this proficiency was not high enough to learn in any effective way. For example,

when I asked the children a general question, they were often incapable of giving me a

correct answer. The reason for this was not because of any level of difficulty, but because the

question was formulated in English. When a child that had understood the question

rephrased that same question in Kiswahili, most of the children were able to understand. This

brings me to my second observation. Even though my class activities were carried out in

English, there were many moments where the language of conversation switched from

English to Kiswahili and back. This language practice of selecting or altering linguistic

elements in interactions is called ‘code-switching’.

These preliminary observations triggered many questions about the language-in-education

situation in Tanzania. In 2007, I already wrote a Bachelor thesis on this issue. Based on

previous research, this study highlighted the ambiguous nature of language-in-education

policies in Tanzania. Why is English the medium of instruction when so many studies have

shown that students lack competent English skills, but they perform better in Kiswahilli? In

my Bachelor thesis, I pointed out that this question needed to be understood in a broader

context of the value that is attached to English in Tanzania and its political, economical and

socio-cultural constraints. These findings were made before the aforementioned

observations. Hence, when I was confronted with the actual language-in-education practice

during my 2007 trip to Tanzania, the motivation grew to write a Master dissertation that would

illuminate the relation between the language-in-education policy, the role of English on a

broader societal level, and the language practice of code-switching in classrooms.

1

2. Situating the study: relevance and assumptions

The study is situated within the debate on English-in-education in Tanzania. Despite studies

since the late 1970's demonstrating students’ poor proficiency in English and a gradual

decline in educational standards, English has remained the medium of instruction. Part of

this study aims to explain why the language in education-policy has not been changed, and,

more importantly, what the implications of the policy are for the interactional practices in

classrooms, the cognitive development of students, and Tanzanian society. In studying this

issue though, this study will go beyond the basic observation that the use of English

accounts for students' poor educational performance. Moreover, it is argued that the debate

on the medium of instruction in Tanzania needs to take into account other factors operating

on the macro-level of society as well as on the micro-level of interaction in classrooms.

This dissertation revolves around the hegemony and legitimacy of English in Tanzania, and

its (re) production through language-in-education policies and practices. English, then, is

considered to be a resource. The belief in the power of English in Tanzania is rooted in

language ideology. Fairclaugh (1989: 2) defines language ideology as “common sense

assumptions which are implicit in the conventions according to which people interact

linguistically, and of which people are generally not consciously aware”. Fairclaugh (1989)

argues that language ideologies are linked to power in two ways. First, ideological

assumptions depend on power relations which give rise to practices that are taken for

granted. Second, these ideologies serve as a means of legitimizing unequal relations of

power when practices engendered by these social relations become naturalized. This way,

language ideologies become an inherent part of what Antonio Gramsci (1971) identified as

'hegemony' between the dominant group(s) and dominated group(s) in society. In the case of

linguistic hegemony, Shannon (1995: 176) argues:

“[...] languages themselves achieve the status of dominant or dominated or prestigious or

inferior, as a result of the struggles, negotiations, and impasses that go on between their

speakers.... Once a language achieves hegemonic status, dominated languages are more

easily perceived as inferior and their speakers almost inevitably internalize that lowly status.

Consequently, they develop a tendency to abandon their language for the dominant one-

naturally choosing an association with higher status.”

The study assumes that education is the key site where these structures, and the ideologies

underlying them, are (re)produces, naturalized and legitimatized. More specifically, I argue

that the discursive practices in educational institutions both reflect and help recreate broader

macro societal dynamics of hegemony and ideology. However, because hegemony and

2

ideologies are not static but, rather, lived experiences, they are constantly in the process of

negotiation and contestation (Phillipson, 1988: 343). These processes occur through/in

micro-level language use, or the face-to-face classroom interaction.

3. Outline and research questions

This dissertation has four chapters. The first chapter is an introduction to the research. It

contains a personal preface, a situating of the study and assumptions, an outline of the

chapters and general research questions. The different methodologies are also discussed in

this chapter. Here, I present an overview of the fieldwork, the multiple ethnographic

approaches applied during the fieldwork, and an introduction to the three sampled schools

where observations were conducted.

In Chapter 2, Tanzania's language-in-education policy is approached from a macro-level

perspective. The chapter aims to find an answer to the question of how different values have

become attached to English and Kiswahili throughout different historical and political

processes in Tanzania and its relationship to the language-in-education policy. More

importantly, it critically analyzes the language ideologies underlying pro-English as a medium

of instruction attitudes that emerged from my interviews conducted with teachers and

workshops carried out with students in the sampled schools. The attitudes are placed within

different theoretical frameworks, namely 'linguistic imperialism' and 'linguistic capital', that

provide plausible explanations for how these ideologies have been constructed, by whom, for

what reasons, and what the implications are for other socio-cultural, political and economical

issues. It will be shown that the English-in-education policy and its underlying ideologies,

then, need to be seen in a broader context of (re)producing the hegemony and legitimacy of

English through (language-in-) education. Chapter 2 provides context in which the analysis of

classroom interaction in Chapter 3 needs to be understood.

Chapter 3 investigates how the hegemony and legitimacy of English is constructed,

negotiated and contested in the micro-politics of classroom interaction, and how these

processes defer according to the semi-macro politics, or the language-policy at the

institutional level of the three sampled schools. Drawing on methods from conversation-

analysis, I investigate how code-switching between English and Kiswahili in specific

interactional architectures and practices both constructs, challenges and deconstructs the

legitimacy of English. The analysis will reveal that classrooms are sites of struggle where,

through interaction, different languages compete for legitimacy. However, legitimate language

3

is not solely about 'language', but is entangled in a complex web of different dimensions of

legitimacy, which include speakers’ authority, legitimate knowledge, identities and cultures.

The analysis will reveal the relationship among these different dimensions.

The final concluding chapter, Chapter 4, makes a balance of all that was discovered from the

data. In doing so, an evaluation is made of the use of English in education that goes beyond

its implications for educational performance. Recommendations are also made.

4. Methodologies

4.1. Overview of the fieldwork

The fieldwork was conducted in Dar es Salaam during a 15 week period between the 20th of

May and the 18th of August 2008. The first two weeks were primarily spent on administrative

matters concerning the fieldwork. This included several visits to the 'Tanzanian Commission

for Science and Technology' (COSTECH), a national organ responsible for research

coordination and research clearances. My application for a research clearance had been

sent in January 2008 but unfortunately never reached COSTECH. A second application was

sent in April 2008 but was not yet granted by the time of my arrival in Tanzania. While waiting

for the research permit, interview appointments were scheduled and introductory visits were

made to the schools where data would be collected. During the third week, interviews were

conducted with Professor Rubagumay, Professor Rwezaura, Professor Kihore and Professor

Rugemalira at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM). The fourth week contained

classroom observations and interviews with teachers in the private primary Hekima Waldorf

school. Because this school was closed the week after, the fifth week was spent on making

arrangements with the private secondary Kenton High School, where classroom

observations would start two weeks later. The sixth week of the fieldwork contained another 5

days of classroom observations and interviews with teachers at the Hekima Waldorf School.

During the seventh week, the data gathered from these classroom observations were

translated and transcribed by myself and a translator. In week eight and nine, classroom

observations and interviews with teachers took place at Kenton High School and an interview

with Dr. Qorro at the UDSM was conducted. During week 10, arrangements were made for a

third and only public secondary school where observations were conducted. Their were

difficulties. Several of these schools in the Dar es Salaam area were visited, but all were very

reluctant to cooperate with the research. Only with permission of the 'Ministry of Education

and Vocational training' (MoEVT) would the schools consider whether a researcher could

4

conduct observations. Hence, week ten was mostly devoted to paperwork for the MoEVT and

trying to find a government secondary school in order to continue observations. After

obtaining permission from the MoEVT, week eleven and twelve were spent on classroom

observations and interviews with teachers in Zanaki Secondary School, a government school

in Dar es Salaam. In collaboration with the teachers, three workshops were organized where

students were engaged in a group discussion on languages and language-in-education in

Tanzania. The last three weeks of the fieldwork were dedicated to transcribing and translating

the data gathered during the observations. Further, interviews at the UDSM took place with

Professor Yahya-Othman, Dr. Kadege and Dr. Qorro, and documentary information was

collected from the University of Dar es Salaam libraries, the MoEVT and HakiElimu.

4.2. The ethnographic approach

This sociolinguistic study was based on field research with several qualitative ethnographic

approaches. Classroom observations formed the main part of the data collecting. Next to

these observations, open field interviews with teachers and academics of the UDSM were

conducted, and documentary sources were gathered. These different procedures are

discussed below.

4.2.1. Documentary sources

During my fieldwork, documentary sources were gathered from libraries of the Department of

Education and the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics at UDSM. For three

decades, both departments have been engaged in research on the language-in-education

situation in Tanzania. Documentary sources gathered from these libraries contained

published books and dissertations that could not be found outside the UDSM. Documentary

sources were also gathered at HakiElimu, a Tanzanian NGO located in Dar es Salaam.

Founded in 2001, HakiElimu’s overall goal is to transform public education in Tanzania to

ensure that every child is able to enjoy his/her right to quality basic education at the primary

and secondary level. HakiElimu provided me with general information concerning the present

(language-in-) education situation in Tanzania. Increasingly, the NGO has been engaged in

debates on the medium of instruction and advocating for the introduction of Kiswahili in

secondary schools. Other documentary sources were collected at the Ministry of Education

5

and Vocational Training in Dar es Salaam. This mainly included statistical and background

information on schools and education in Tanzania in general.

4.2.2. Open field interviews

In total, 12 teachers and 8 UDSM professors were interviewed. The interviews with teachers

were tape-recorded within the school compounds in Dar es Salaam. They involved 3

teachers from the Hekima Waldorf School, 7 Zanaki Secondary School teachers and 2

teacher from Kenton High school. I felt that open field interviews, rather than semi-structured

or structured interviews, were most likely to allow for the free flow of information. Often, the

interview was initiated by the question of what the interviewee thought of the use of English

as a medium of instruction. The rest of the conversation followed naturally without any preset

questions. The interviews were conducted to investigate teachers' attitudes and beliefs about

English as a medium of instruction in Tanzania. All teachers expressed dissatisfaction with

the current language-in-education policy, but only one saw a solution in switching to Kiswahili

as the medium of instruction. The interviews allowed me to create a broader understanding

and provided an overview of the language ideologies underpinning the language-in-

education policy. Ideas about English expressed during these interviews revolved around the

symbolic value of English and revealed that English in Tanzania is a resource and a form of

linguistic capital. This way, the interviews not only shed light on the role of English in

education, but also on the impact of the language on Tanzanian society in general. Teachers

were also asked whether they code-switched between English and Kiswahili in the

classroom. Only one said he didn't.

I had wanted to conduct more interviews with teachers, but this was impossible due to

various reasons. First, due to a lack of teachers, most teachers were pressed by time

constraints. The shortage of teachers is also the reason why most interviews took no longer

than 15 minutes. Second, many teachers were reluctant to be interviewed. Of course, the

situation of a foreigner arriving at a school asking questions is somewhat contrived, and I

could sense a general fear among teachers to say or do anything that might cause them

trouble. To put these teachers at ease, the interviews were conducted in private during

school break times. Two teachers wished not to be tape-recorded and all teachers were

guaranteed anonymity.

A second set of audio-recorded interviews involved academics from the 'Faculty of

Education' and the 'Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics at the University of

6

Dar es Salaam. The interviewees all had conducted research on language-in-education in

Tanzania. I chose to conduct these interviews in order to obtain an idea of their thoughts,

opinions, and experiences in relation to my research questions. This was important in three

ways. First, my own research findings can only attribute to the three schools in question.

However, by taking the findings from other research into account, these schools became

more representative to symbolize the general education situation in Tanzania. Second, the

'insider' perspective broadened my own view on the issue and allowed me to interpret the

classroom observations within their specific (cultural) context. Third, as Blommaert pointed

out in 'Campus Swahili' (1999), the University is the home of the intellectual elite where 'high'

English is spoken. Hence, through conducting interviews with these educated professionals,

it was interesting to see how they, as the elite of society symbolized through (linguistic)

resources such as 'high' English, reflect on the role of English in Tanzania and English-in-

education. All academics interviewed expressed concern about the current language-in-

education policy and the need for a change to Kiswahili. Though not all UDSM staff share

this opinion, I was not able to conduct interviews with opponents of English-medium

education. The reason for this is that, at the time of the fieldwork, the academic year had

come to an end and many academics had left Dar es Salaam and were not coming back

before my departure back to Belgium.

4.2.3. Classroom observations

The classroom observations entailed a procedure of collecting participant observation data

and video recordings of the naturally occurring interactions during lessons in the three

sampled schools. A total of 25 hours video material was gathered. One needs to keep in

mind what Labov (1972: 209) has termed 'the observers paradox', i.e. that the “mere act of

observing people’s language behaviour is inclined to change that behaviour”. Hence, to avoid

conscious code-switching or, on the other hand, to prevent the avoidance of spontaneous

code-switching among participants, all participants were made aware of the project but were

not told the actual focus of the research. To this end, before the start of the actual

observations, a few hours in all three sampled schools were spent on informal chats with

students and teachers. I found this form of 'socializing' also useful in creating an atmosphere

of trust between myself and the participants. Although it might be argued that it is not always

in the best interest of the research for the observer to be in the limelight, I, paradoxically,

found that this was the most effective way for participants to become accustomed to my

presence after a day or two and, more importantly, for the observer to disappear into the

7

crowd and capture natural interaction in classrooms. Still, the knowledge that the lessons

were being video-recorded might have, to some extent, influenced the (language) behaviour

of participants.

After observations were made, participants were debriefed and the purpose of the research

was explained to them. To this end, three workshops were carried out in Zanaki Secondary

School in which Form 1, Form 3 and Form 6 students were engaged in a discussion on

language-in-education in Tanzania. Due to lack of time on the part of the teachers, no such

workshops took place in the two other sampled schools. Each school posed different

conditions, challenges and difficulties that influenced the qualitative and quantitative nature

of the classroom observations. These will be discussed in the following section. A general

problem, however, was my own poor proficiency in Kiswahili. This implied that, when I was

not video-recording and code-switching in the classroom occurred, I was not capable of

writing down the interaction segment so that the observed data was lost. When I was video-

recording, no immediate interpretations of the code-switching practices could be conducted

and I had to rely heavily on the quality of the video-tape and the good sense of hearing and

understanding of my translator.

4.3. The schools

4.3.1. Selecting the schools

Within the framework of the research questions, it was important to carry out classroom

observations in different types of schools in Dar es Salaam. Part of the study aims to

investigate how the manifestation of the hegemony of English in schools varies according to

the language-policy at the institutional, or semi-macro level. To this end, three schools were

selected. The first type of school is a secondary government schools that follows the national

language-in-education policy and prescribes the use of English as a medium of instruction.

For the second and third school, I chose a secondary and a primary private school that had

established their own ‘English-only’ policy but varied in the way the policy was actually

implemented. Although one might argue this is hard to determine before actually conducting

observations of classroom interaction, there were several signs indicating that the secondary

school followed a more strict English-only policy than the primary school. For example, the

former had a large 'English medium' sign on the entrance gate and above every classroom

door 'English-only' boards were placed. All of this was absent in the private primary school.

Another reason to include a private primary school, rather than two secondary schools, was

8

based on the interest in finding how teachers cope with the difficulty of teaching in a

language that was completely new for young children. Schools selection was also based on

their willingness to cooperate in the research and their location in regard to my own abode.

Not all students attending government secondary schools also went to government primary

schools, nor did students attending secondary private schools necessarily attended private

primary education. Students’ population in both types of secondary schools is thus mixed. In

Tanzania, enrollment into secondary schools is based on students’ examination results.

Hence, some students coming from private primary are admitted to private secondary

schools, while others are admitted to government secondary schools. Of course, since only

private schools are not 'free', enrollment in the latter also depends on parents' financial

power.

4.3.2. Zanaki Secondary School

Zanaki Secondary School is located in the East Upanga area in Dar es Salaam. The school

was built in 1939 and has been owned by the central government since the early 1970's. As

with many government schools in Tanzania, the student overpopulation and the teacher

shortage at Zanaki Secondary Schools is a severe problem. To cope with the teaching of

over 1500 students, the school introduced a system of daily double schooling sessions. The

first session starts at 7:00 am and ends at 12:55 am. The second sessions starts at 1:00 pm

and ends at 5:50 pm. In general, there are 32 O-level classes1, i.e. eight streams for each

Form (Forms 1-4), and 10 A-level classes (Form 5 and 6). Observations took place at all

levels. The first week of observations was conducted during the morning session and the

second week during the afternoon session.

Teaching and learning conditions for both teachers and students in Zanaki Secondary School

were not easy. Classrooms were small compared to the number of students. Sometimes, this

number went up to 60 in a classroom that was designed for no more than 30 students. This

had a number of practical implications for conducting classroom observations. I usually sat at

the back of the classroom but, because of the number of students, it was not always possible

to choose a convenient position that would allow me to have a good overview of the

classroom. Furthermore, every hour teachers would switch classes. Due to the lack of

teachers it frequently occurred that no teacher showed up and I had to search for another

9

1The formal secondary school education in Tanzania consists of two sequential cycles. The first cycle is a four- year Ordinary level (O-Level) secondary education. The second cycle is a two-year programme of Advanced level (A- Level) secondary education.

class to continue observations. Once a class was found, a new convenient position had to be

chosen which made it challenging not to distract students, make them nervous or

uncomfortable with my present. Sometimes, a new class was found but the teacher showed

reluctance in participating. In most cases, it did not take a lot of convincing once he/she was

informed that permission had been granted by the headmaster. In other cases, however,

teachers could not be convinced and the search for another class continued.

4.3.3. Hekima Waldorf School

The Hekima Waldorf School is a private primary school in the Mikocheni area in Dar es

Salaam. Waldorf education (also known as Steiner education) is a pedagogy based upon the

educational philosophy of its founder, Rudolf Steiner. Some elements of this philosophy

include the emphasis the role of visual arts, music, drama, imagination and creativity, in the

learning and development of children. David Lynne and James McCulaugh, two former pupils

of Wynstones Waldorf School in England, brought the impulse for Waldorf Education to

Tanzania when they went there as voluntary aid workers. In Tanzania, they met Rashidi

Mbuguni and Adeline Mlay who became fascinated by the ideas of Waldorf pedagogics. In

cooperation with four other Tanzanians, they founded the Hekima Waldorf school in 1997. A

total of about 60 students are currently attending the school. There are seven classes, one

for each grade (grade 1-7). Observations were done in grade 3 and grade 62.

Most pupils at the Hekima Waldorf School come from elite families. As with the majority of

private schools in Tanzania, parents who can afford it send their children to this school

because they believe it provides quality education. Hekima Waldorf school recognizes that

the decisive argument as to why parents choose for Hekima Waldorf is their request for a

good school rather than their believe in the Walorf pedagogics. Although some elements of

Waldorf’s education, such as the fact that a single teacher loops with a class throughout the

primary school years, the Hekima Waldorf School lacks teacher educated in Waldorf

pedagogy and is therefore far from an 'orthodox' Waldorf instituton. Also, the use of English

as a medium of instruction is somewhat controversial since the school claims to adjust the

curriculum to the cultural traditions of Tanzania.

Conditions for conducting observations in the Waldorf School were in a way more favorable

than in Zanaki Secondary School. The classrooms were spacious and well organized. With

10

2Primary education in Tanzania is a seven year education cycle that begins with Standard One, on entry, and ends with Standard Seven in the final year.

an average of 13 pupils per class, I always had a good overview of what was happening in

the classroom. However, these young pupils were much noisier and less disciplined than the

students in both secondary schools. There were many times when different conversations

simultaneously took place which made it more difficult for the observer to capture the

interaction.

4.3.4. Kenton High School

Kenton High School is a private secondary school located in the Mwenge area in Dar es

Salaam. The school has a population of about 300 students. There are 8 O-level classes, i.e

2 for each Form, and 2 A-level classes (Form 5 and 6). The timing for observations at Kenton

High School was a bit unfortunate. It was the beginning of the school year and many

students were absent.

Kenton High School offered the most favourable conditions for conducting classroom

observations. Considering the absence of many students, there was an average class

population of 20 students. As with the Hekima Waldorf School, I always had a good overview

of what was happening in the classroom. Students at Kenton High School were very

disciplined and calm which made it easy to capture the interaction. On the other hand,

considering the severity of the 'English-only' policy, hardly any code-switching was observed.

As will be shown in this dissertation, this does however not make the school less relevant for

my research.

4.4. Data analysis

All the audio and video data gathered during the interviews and classroom observations were

transcribed and translated into English where Kiswahili was used. Most of this process took

place during the fieldwork where I was assisted by a local translator. Translating and

transcribing is an intensive and wearisome task. When video-recording every day talk, one

does not solely capture naturally occurring interaction, but one also simultaneously captures

naturally occurring noisy or coughing children, creaking chairs, and teachers speaking in low

voices. By consequence, it took a lot of energy, concentration and patience from myself and

the translator to listen and watch to the same recorded seconds over and over again.

Furthermore, conditions for translating and transcribing were not always favorable. Daily

power break downs disturbed the functioning of the television needed for playing the video-

11

recordings; and traffic jams, rainstorms and other obstacles caused translating and

transcribing sessions to be hours delayed or sometimes even cancelled and postponed.

The actual analysis of the classroom interaction was based on methods from conversation

analysis. These methods will be illuminated in Chapter 3.

12

Chapter 2: Tanzania’s language-in-education policy from a

macro-level perspective: analyzing language ideologies and the

hegemony of English

“[…] we Tanzanians, we are so proud when we speak English. Sometimes you are seen as

important because you speak English. You feel proud when you speak English... Feeling that

speaking English... you are something, you are someone of the higher class.…and this

started with colonialism because we were under the British.... And those who were very close

to white men, they used to speak English very very good. Those who were away from the

white men, they used to speak native languages or Kiswahili and they accounted as less

people, not important at all, marginalized. So from then, those who spoke English had a

higher status...white collar jobs were for those who knew English....So, the classification

started during the colonialism and we have maintained it up to today” (Open field interviews:

appendix 2I, teacher 3).

1. Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to review and critically analyze the language-in-education

policy in Tanzania. It aims to explore the reasons which underpin the policy, and its

implications on educational performance and on society at large. In particular, this chapter is

about the historical growth of the symbolic, sociocultural, economic and political value of

English in Tanzania. I will show how English, throughout historical, political and economical

situations both in a global context as well as within Tanzanian society, has been used as a

resource to establish hegemony. This hegemony is produced and replicated through

language ideologies, and made legitimate by the language-in-education policy.

This chapter begins with an overview of the language-in-education policy and highlights the

historical growth of the language-in-education situation today, its contradictions, and the

problems that arise from it on a pedagogical level. This overview will also show how specific

values have become attached to both English and Kiswahili and how these values have

fluctuated throughout different historical time periods. The second part of this chapter

attempts to answer the following question: Why has English remained the medium of

instruction in all post-primary education in Tanzania, despite vast evidence that poor

educational performance is largely due to the continued use of English as a means of

instruction? To answer this question, I draw on assumptions about English that emerged from

my interviews conducted with teachers and workshops with students in the sampled schools.

13

An analysis of these assumptions reveal a complex web of language ideologies that have

implications for other socio-cultural, political and economical issues. I will show how

language ideologies define English and become inherent to people's assumptions about the

need for English as a medium of instruction. This construction needs to be seen in the

context of the (re)production of hegemonic power relations within societies, generated by

historical processes of colonialism, and contemporary dynamics of post-colonialism,

globalization and inter-societal domination.

2. The language-in-education policy

2.1. Historical background

2.1.1. The rise and spread of Kiswahili

The name of the language Kiswahili, or the angalized version 'Swahili', originates from the

Arabic word for coast: 'sahil'. As the name implies, Kiswahili originated as a language in the

10th century along the coast of East Africa. By the 19th century, the language began

spreading into the interior of East and Central Africa (Whiteley: 1969). According to Whiteley,

the expansion of Kiswahili into Africa's interior fell into two phases. In the first phase, from

about 1800 to 1850, Kiswahili gradually moved to the inland with Arab slave and ivory trade

caravans who took the language with them in the form of a Swahili-speaking 'managerial'

core. During the second phase, from around 1850 until the advent of the colonial powers, the

language was first studies and used as a basis for teaching others (Whiteley, 1969: 42). It

was not until German colonial rule that Kiswahili had its first taste of official status.

2.1.2. Colonial language policies

When the Germans colonized areas of East Africa (present-day mainland Tanzania, Rwanda

and Burundi) in the late 1880's, they relied heavily on Kiswahili speaking indigenous people

for the administration of the colony. These local administrators or Akidas were positioned in

different districts of the colony to deal with local governmental affairs. This encouraged the

spread of Kiswahili further into the hinterland (Batibo, 1995 :60) According to Rubagumya

(1990:6), the Germans promoted Kiswahili because of its administrative convenience.

Hence, Kiswahili was used as a medium of instruction throughout the entire school system.

14

However, their motivations in choosing Kiswahili rather than German as a language of

instruction was, according to Roy-Campbell (2001), not from a desire that Tanzanians be

educated through a language they understood or spoke in order to advance their education,

but, rather, was a means of preparing the colonized for employment in the colonial

bureaucracy. Thus, the use of the convenient and widespread lingua franca was the most

practical choice for the Germans (Roy-Campbell, 2001: 42). Further, according to Puja

(2003), the use and promotion of Kiswahili during German rule was a way to pacify the

coastal indigenous people who were mostly Muslim and spoke Kiswahili. Finally, the

Germans did not think Africans could learn German sufficiently (Puja, 2003:118). When the

government in Germany established a colony, they envisioned a land that would be self-

supporting and produce revenue. In the beginning of colonization this was, however, hard to

implement because the colonial regime encountered armed resistance which eventually

escalated in the Maji Maji Rebellion of 1905 (Malik, 1996).The rebellion was an uprising by

several African population groups in the colony against the German rule. The brutal Maji Maji

war ended in 1907 and was followed by what John Iliffe (cited in Malik: 1996) called 'a period

of improvement'. During this period, it was thought that Africans came to 'accept' colonial

rule, i.e. that they recognized the Germans could not be defeated and that they might as well

join them then. And, as Ilffe pointed out,

“[…]The characteristic man of the age of improvement was the literate priest, akida or clerk,

trader or teacher, the new intermediary between European and African” (Ilffe, cited in Malik

1996: 157)

These new 'intermediaries' were largely Kiswahili speakers and were extensively used in the

administration of colonial power. Because the intermediaries enjoyed higher status in colonial

society and conducted business in Kiswahili, the perception of the language rose as the

language began to be seen as one related to self-improvement (Malik, 1996: 157).Those

who spoke Kiswahili increased their chances of obtaining better job-opportunities and higher

salaries. As the Germans constructed railways into the hinterland, Kiswahili followed along

with every rail track laid (Malik, 1996: 158).

When World War I erupted in Europe in 1914, German territories in Africa were threatened

from troops in neighboring French and British colonies. By early 1916, most of German Africa

was in the hands of the Allied Powers. In 1917, the British officially gained control over the

colony from the Germans and English replaced German as the new official language of

15

Tanganyika3. British colonial power was based upon indirect rule, as prescribed by its British

architect Lord Frederick Lugard. As Mandami (1999) points out, indirect rule created a

'bifurcated state' in which two forms of rule existed. The first one was dominated by the

colonial white administration and the second one by local African chiefs who served as

intermediaries to administer the subordinate people.

The British language policies in Tanganyika played an important part in the construction of

indirect rule. Under the British, schools were segregated and places in schools were

unequally allocated to the different 'races'. In addition, in areas that had Christian missionary

activities, children could attend missionary schools and learn English. Next to race and

region, the learning of English was restricted by wealth. Parents had to pay school fees and

as a consequence, children from poor families were exempted (Yahya-Othman and Batibo,

1996: 391). In government schools, Kiswahili was preserved as a medium of instruction in

the first five years of primary school, but the medium in the last three years of primary and all

of secondary education transitioned to English (Rubagumya, 1991: 74). Since Kiswahili was

offered as a subject up to the first years of secondary education, it did not entirely disappear

from the colonial agenda. Yahya-Othman (1997: 5) notes that, much like their German

colonial predecessors, the British colonial government did not eliminate Kiswahili from the

school curriculum because it served the colony's own political and economic interests.

Kiswahili’s importance was rooted in it being a critical means of communication between

British colonials and their African intermediaries. According to Blommaert (1999: 87-88),

Kiswahili’s prominent role in the colonial era was the key British motivation for promoting and

standardizing the language through the creation of an official (Kiswahili) Language

Committee in January 1930. Studies on colonialism have shown that colonial educational

objectives were geared toward producing a small minority of elite Tanganyikans who could

serve in administering the colonial government while the majority of the population would

remain purposely uneducated (Neke, 2003: 262). Because these people were 'educated',

they spoke English and were perceived to be much more 'civilized' than the masses.

The mission to spread civilization or rather, 'the White man's burden', was based on

assumptions rooted in evolutionary overtones of the time known as eugenics. The argument

of this era was that European culture was superior to the cultures of Africans and that, since

Europeans were 'racially' distinct from Africans, this superiority must be genetically-based.

16

3 Under German rule, the colony was named ‘German East Africa’. When the British took over, the

largest segment of German East Africa was transferred to British control (except Rwanda and Burundi

which went to Belgium, and the small Kionga Triangle which went to Portuguese Mozambique).The

British territory was named ‘Tanganyika’.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mozambique

http://www.answers.com/topic/rwanda

http://www.answers.com/topic/rwanda

http://www.answers.com/topic/burundi

http://www.answers.com/topic/burundi

http://www.answers.com/topic/kionga-triangle

http://www.answers.com/topic/kionga-triangle

http://www.answers.com/topic/mozambique

Africans were deemed to lack the history, culture, religion and intelligence and thus it was the

duty of Europeans to fill this void (Pennycook, 1998: 51-56). Therefore, colonialism was not

only about economic and political exploitation, it was also based on 'controlling the mind of

the subordinated'. Language in/and education played a crucial role in this. Education was the

key to bring 'enlightenment' to the African people, and English was considered the carrier of

this 'enlightenment'. As Ndebele (cited in Pennycook, 1998: 5) argues, a dominant language

in a society is the carrier of certain perceptions, attitudes and goals of that society, for

through it, the speakers absorb entrenched attitudes. Hence, under British rule, certain

ideological discourses were produced that made notions like civilisation and education

adhere to English. As we shall see later, current pro English-in-education attitudes in

Tanzania can be partly understood in the light of language ideologies inherited from the

colonial era.

Towards the end of the British colonial era, Kiswahili was increasingly seen by Tanganykans

as a 'second-class' language because knowledge of it did not come with the same

advantages as English. However, when the pressure for independence began in the late

1940’s and 1950’s, it did not take long before there was a significant resurgence of Kiswahili

and attitudes toward English radically changed.

2.1.3. Elimu ya Kujitegemea

In 1954, Julius Nyerere, a former secondary school teacher, founded the Tanganyika African

National Union (TANU). This political party fought for independence and utilized Kiswahili to

mobilize and unite the Tanganyikan population. Throughout its use in nationalist activities,

Kiswahili became a symbol of nationalism (Blommaert, 1999: 88). In 1961 the country gained

independence, with Julius Nyerere as its first president. Soon after independence, in 1962,

Julius Nyerere declared Kiswahili the national language and addressed the parliament in

Kiswahili. This was meant as a radical departure from colonial practice, where all

governmental matters were addressed in English. Declaring Kiswahili the national language

was not enough for the Nyerere government and programs for its development and

dissemination were soon put in place (Mulokozi, 2002:2). In 1967, Kiswahili was adopted as

the official language of government and of Tanzania4 in general. Numerous governmental

17

4 In 1964, Tanganyika joined with the islands of Zanzibar to form the ‘United Republic of Tanganyika

and Zanzibar’. Later that year the name was changed to the ‘United Republic of Tanzania’.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tanzania

http://www.answers.com/topic/zanzibar

http://www.answers.com/topic/zanzibar

http://www.answers.com/topic/tanzania

bodies were established, such as TUKI (1967)5 and BAKITA6 (1964), who were, among other

things, responsible for the terminological development and standardization of Kiswahili.

Nyerere's most outstanding brainchild was the socio-economical, political and ideological

orientation of Ujamaa. Ujamaa, a Kiswahili word for ‘togetherness’ or ‘familyhood, is

commonly referred to as African socialism. Although Ujamaa was characterized by certain

socialist dimensions, it was certainly not a traditional form of socialism. Ujamaa was socialist

in that it would (1) withdraw Tanzania from the economic world market and direct its economy

towards national self-reliance, and (2) increase control of social and economic life by the

state. On the other hand, basic socialist concepts such as class or class struggle were not

applicable to the Ujamaa ideology (Blommaert, 1999: 49-50). Ujamaa strove to be a form of

nationalism that unites all Tanzanians through a shared 'national cultural identity'. In 1967,

Nyerere’s texts on Ujamaa, which were considered the guiding principles in transforming

socio-political and economic life in Tanzania through self-reliance, were promulgated in the

Arusha Declaration (ArDe). As Blommaert (1999: 69) points out, the relationship between

Kiswahili and the new nation was romantic and Herderian. Kiswahili was the carrier of a

specific set of Tanzanian values such as freedom, Ujamaa and anticolonialism. In contrast,

English under Ujamaa became a symbol of neocolonialism and oppression against

Tanzanians and Africans in general (Blommaert 1999). Both education and language played

a crucial role in creating the Ujamaa society as Nyerere transformed the educational

curriculum to focus on the Tanzanian national experience.

After introducing Kiswahili as the official language of Tanzania in 1967, reforming the colonial

educational system was a high priority for Nyerere’s governmental agenda. To this end,

Nyerere wrote and issued the Elimu ya kujitegemea or Education for self-reliance (ESR)

policy in 1968. Under ESR, Tanzania would transform its educational system into a force for

common good by orienting the system toward rural life and removing the remnants of

colonialism. Children would learn the basic skills required for living and functioning in an

Ujamaa society. As Mwansoko (1990) argues:

“[….] Education for self-reliance emphasized the relevance of education to the socio-political

and economic needs of Tanzania, a country which for many decades to come will continue to

be mainly agricultural. Essentially, ERS aimed at producing young people who were aware of

18

5TUKI or Institute for Kiswahili Research

6BAKITA or National Kiswahili Council

their social responsibilities in a poor country attempting a socialist transformation and who

could be absorbed into the country's economy" (Mwansoko 1990: 52).

Children were seen as the future builders of Tanzania who would work together and unite the

country through a strong national and cultural identity. To this end, factories, state farms and

Ujamaa-villages were built and brought together people from different linguistic backgrounds.

Hence, in order for Ujamaa to work, education had to be accessible to all Tanzanians in a

medium understandable to everyone. Thus, making Kiswahili the medium of instruction

throughout the entire Tanzanian school system would seem the most logical next step. In

1968, Tanzania implemented Kiswahili as a medium of instruction (MOI) at the primary

school level and revealed a plan to introduce Kiswahili at the secondary and tertiary

educational levels. This plan, known as the second governmental ‘Five Year Plan of

Tanzania’ (FYPT:1969-1974) states the following:

“Children, on entering secondary school, will now have to shift to study in a new language, at

the same time as taking on more difficult sets of subjects…[A]s the government moves over

to the complete use of Kiswahili it will hence become more and more inappropriate to have

the secondary and higher education system operate in English” (cited in Brock-Utne, 2000:

26)

During the 1970’s, policymakers were on the verge of implementing a complete transition

from English to Kiswahili in secondary schools. In 1978, Mlama and Matteru issued a study

commissioned by BAKITA which highlighted the problematic conditions arising from the

continuation of the English-in-education policy. This 1978 study amplified the belief among

Tanzanians that the medium of instruction would soon change from English to Kiswahili for

educational purposes (Lwaitama and Rugemalira, 1990:36). As a result of the study,

president Nyerere appointed a Presidential Commission on Education to review the entire

educational system which issued its report in February 1982. The Commission's

recommendations on the medium of instruction were clear: students' educational

performance was poor due to the continued use of English as a means of instruction, and

change could no longer be postponed. A date (January 1985) had finally been set for the

actual change in Tanzania's medium of instruction policy, but this date was canceled and

even removed from the official report in 1984.

During that same year, in 1984, Criper and Dodd of the British Council conducted a British

government-funded study to determine the state of Tanzania's educational system. Like the

previous studies conducted during the prior 10 years, Criper and Dodd concluded that

19

educational standards were falling because teachers’ and students’ knowledge of and

proficiency in English were too low. However, unlike previous studies, Criper and Dodd did

not recommend a change from English to Kiswahili. Instead Criper and Dodd advocated

strengthening English in schools as a means of improving Tanzania's educational standards.

The report was delivered to both president Nyerere and the British government, which

subsequently formed the ‘English Language Teaching Support Program’ (ELTSP). This

program was a 10 year project (1986-1996) and had the main objective of improving the

teaching of English and language learning on the secondary educational level. The learning

method it advocated was language acquisition through reading. School inspectors, teachers

and other personnel received additional English-training from British language officers and

inspectors, and new learning and teaching materials were produced and distributed to

Tanzanian schools (Malekela, 2003: 104-105). The first evaluation report of the ELTSP was

issued six years after the program was implemented. The report found, among other things,

that the ELTSP improved students reading skills minimally. The evaluators however admitted

that this achievement was “[….] as much as could be expected under the difficult working

conditions prevailing in secondary schools in Tanzania” (Qorro, 2003: 188). In addition,

Malekela (2003: 105) claims that, due to little funding, the production of new materials was

limited and thus not benefiting all schools. Furthermore the project was weakened as a result

of the rapid increase of the number of secondary schools, the vastness of the country, and

managerial problems. Regarding teacher performance, Rea-Dickens (1997) evaluation report

on the ELTSP concludes:

“One disturbing finding from the study has been the generally low standard of teaching

exhibited in the majority of the schools…. Generally the many observations discovered few

teachers who performed well in the classroom and who knew how to organize a successful

language teaching lesson…. The overall level of competence of teachers observed gives

serious concern. An education system can only ever be as good as the teachers who serve

in it” (Rea-Dickens, cited in Malekela 2003: 105).

In an interview with Martha Qorro, she evaluated the ELTSP as followed:

“[...]I look at it as if you have your child who is under water. That child is deep under water,

and someone tells you they are going to help you bring him up. But they pull him up from the

bottom of this pool to one meter under the surface. That child is still under water. It doesn’t

matter what the change might be, he is still under water.... He cannot survive, He cannot

breath, he is still under water. But, they have helped. They have lifted him from way down, up

to somewhere close to the surface. ... And I think, ok, they have done a good job and made

20

some improvement. But, that improvement is not sufficient to make children proficient in

English and use English as a medium of instruction...” (Open field interviews: appendix 2A,

Martha Qorro).

Despite various studies demonstrating that the continued use of English as a medium of

instruction was seriously damaging the educational prospects of Tanzanian children, the

Tanzanian government continued with the ELTSP and the use of English in secondary

schools. Nyerere stepped down as president of Tanzania in 1985 and his initial desire to re-

imagining education through the lens of Ujamaa ceased. From that point onwards, none of

Nyerere's successors (i.e. Ali Hassan Mwinyi, Benjamin Mkapa and Jakaya Kikwete) have

brought significant change to Tanzania's language-in-education policy.

2.2. Language-in-education today: continuity and problems

Today, the structure of language instruction and its relation to Tanzanian education is much

as it was following independence. The official and current language-in-education policy of

Tanzania derives from the Education and Training Policy (MoEC, 1995), which states:

“The medium of instruction in pre-primary schools shall be Kiswahili, and English shall be a

compulsory subject” (MoEC 1995 section 5.2.3.: 35); “The medium of instruction in primary

schools shall be Kiswahili, and English shall be a compulsory subject” (MoEC, 1995 section

5.3.7.: 39); “The medium of instruction secondary education shall continue to be English,

except for the teaching of other approved languages and Kiswahili shall be a compulsory

subject up to ordinary level” (MoEC 1995 section 5.4.9.: 45).

Two years after the issuance of the 1995 policy, the Ministry of Education and Culture in

Tanzania issued yet another policy document known as ‘Sera ya Utamaduni’ or ‘Cultural

Policy’ (MoEC, 1997). Section 3.4.1 of this policy document, which also dealt with the

language of instruction, includes the following statement:

“Mpango maalum wa kuiwezesha elimu na mafunzo katika ngazi zote kutolewa katika lugha

ya Kiswahili utaandaliwa na kutekelezwa… Kingereza kitakuwa ni somo la lazima katika

elimu ya awali, msingi na sekondari na kitahimizwa katika elimu ya juu na ufundishaji wake

utaboreshwa” (MoEC, 1997:18 & 19). (translations: ‘a special plan to enable the use of

Kiswahili as a medium of instruction in education and training at all levels shall be designed

and implemented…English will be a compulsory subject at pre-primary, primary and

21

secondary levels and it shall be encouraged in higher education. The teaching of English

shall be strengthened’).

Though there have been efforts to strengthen English as a medium of instruction by

introducing it as a subject from Standard One, there has been no governmental initiative to

develop a plan to implement Kiswahili as a medium of instruction at a secondary and/or

tertiary level. English as a subject from Standard One seemed to be sufficient as the Ministry

of Education and Culture stated that it is:

“[….] expected that at the end of seven years of primary education, pupils will have acquired

and developed adequate mastery of this language, both spoken and written, to cope with the

English language proficiency demands at secondary, post-secondary levels and the world of

work.” (MoEC, 1995: 44-45).

Meanwhile, studies continue to indicate the devastating effects of the language-in-education

policy and the need for change (cf. Qorro 2003,2006; Galabwa & Lwaitama 2005, Malekela

2004; Brock-Utne 2006 etc.). The government however does not appear to acknowledge this

need. For example, in 2001 the Ministry of Education and Vocational training released its

‘Education Sector Development Program’ (ESDP) which lists the 'use of English as a medium

of instruction’ under the category of ‘strengths of secondary education’ (‘MoEVT, 2001: 63).

Despite all of this however, national statistics indicate an overall improvement of students’

educational performance, including their performance in English and Kiswahili. Since the

implementation of the Primary Education Development Plan (PEDP) in 2002 and the

Secondary Education Development Plan (SEDP) in 2004, which were introduced to improve

the educational system, Tanzania has made significant improvements in enrollment rates

(MoEVT: 2007a&2007b). However, according to a 2006 study, commissioned by HakiElimu

and conducted by Sumra and Rajani, most of these statistics are based on the outcomes of

national exams. The HakiElimu study took a closer look at the Primary School Leaving

Examination (PSLE) to research the scope of these examinations and what they measure.

The PSLE, a national test all Standard Seven students have to take, marks the completion of

the primary education cycle and is used for the selection of students into secondary

education (MoEVT: 2008). Until 2002, the PSLE consisted of three papers: mathematics,

general knowledge, and language. In 2002, the Ministry of Education and Vocational training

established separate papers for the two languages with effect from 2003. But, as Sumra and

Rajani (2006) argued, even the language papers do not require students to write a single

22

sentence. Their study found that because the PSLE is multiple-choice, it largely measures

the regurgitation of facts while minimally focusing on the measurement of analytical and

problem solving skills (Sumra and Rajani, 2006: 5-6). Furthermore, they observed that

teachers teach to enable students to pass the exams, by “cramming to remember things that

will most likely be forgotten shortly after the examinations anyway” (Sumra and Rajani, 2006:

5). According to the authors, this is the result of increased pressure on both students and

teachers to increase educational performance (Sumra and Rajani, 2006: 5). Another aspect

influencing the increase of final scores of examinations is, according to Sumra and Rajani

(2006), the changed proportions of the sections of the examinations. The scores of the

Kiswahili language section of the test count for more, and thus the overall performance score

improves, even when there may be no real educational improvement among students

(Sumra and Rajani 2006: 6).

By taking a closer look at the PSLE Kiswahili and English pass rates, these observations can

be further elaborated. According to the MoEVT (2007c), the overall pass rates in the PSLE

have increased from 21.3% in 1998 to 70.5% in 2006.

Implemented in 2002 to reinvigorate Tanzania’s primary educational system, the Primary

Education Development Program (PEDP) also had an impact on improved student

performance. But, as Sumra and Rajani (2006) already indicated, this does not necessarily

mean the use of English as a MOI has improved. For example, officially the PSLE pass rate

in 2004 was 48.7% (MoEVT: 2007c), but what does this tell us about students’ Kiswahili and

English proficiency? In order to answer this question, I will compare their 2004 performance

in the two subjects in Table 1 and Table 2. As mentioned earlier, Standard Five students sit

for two separate language papers in their PSLE, one for Kiswahili and one for English. Data

in tables 2 and 3 show they perform much better in Kiswahili than in English.

23

Table 1: Performance in Kiswahili in the PSLE by Gender 2004

A B C D E Total

M 244% 357% 242% 133% 24% 252262

F 162% 337% 294% 174% 32% 248675

ALL 203% 347% 268% 154% 28% 500937

Note: A=81-100%; B=61-80%; C=43-60%; D=21-42%; E=0-20%. Passes= A,B and C. Fail= D and E. Source: National Examination Council Tanzania (NECTA): Primary School leaving Examination Results Statistics

2004.

Table 2: Performance in English in the PSLE by Gender in 2004

A B C D E Total

M 43% 140% 207% 374% 235% 248325

F 27% 93% 164% 423% 293% 248668

ALL 35% 116% 186% 399% 264% 496993

Note: A=81-100%; B=61-80%; C=43-60%; D=21-42%; E=0-20%. Passes= A,B and C. Fail= D and E. Source: National Examination Council Tanzania (NECTA): Primary School leaving Examination Results Statistics

2004.

Whereas an overall of 81.8% of the pupils passed in the Kiswahili paper in 2004, the

percentage of students passing in English was only 33.7%. The difference in performance

between both languages is also reflected in the results of the Certificate of Secondary

Education Examination (CSEE). Obtaining appropriate credits in the CSEE is fundamental

for the students seeking to enroll in advanced level secondary education (MoEVT, 2008). In

an analysis of Kiswahili and English CSEE results from 1998 to 2002, it was determined that,

as in the PSLE, students performed better in Kiswahili than in English (Malekela: 2004). In

fact, as Sumra and Rajani (2006) argue:

“[….] it is possible for primary school leavers to pass Swahili and fail everything else and still

score above the overall pass rate for the primary examinations. … If examinations is what

‘counts’; examinations should count what matters” (Sumra and Rajani, 2006: 5-6).

The problem with the medium of instruction begins at the primary education level and

continues, if not intensifies, in secondary education when the medium of instruction

transitions to English. Recent studies (Malekela 2004, Qorro 2003, Brock-Utne 2006) have

brought to light a new problematic outcome of the language in education policy: not only

does the continued use of English medium prevent students from acquiring knowledge, it

also hinders them from learning the English language. Although government officials have

recognized the problem in the past, any reservations they may have had about the

24

educational effects of using English in secondary schools seem to have been assuaged. The

‘National website of the United Republic of Tanzania’ currently states:

“[...]The main feature of Tanzania’s education system is the bilingual policy, which requires

children to learn both Kiswahili and English. English is essential, as it is the language which

links Tanzania and the rest of the world through technology, commerce and also

administration. The learning of the Kiswahili enables Tanzania’s students to keep in touch

with their cultural values and heritage. English is taught as compulsory subject in the primary

education whereas at post primary education is the medium of instruction. With regard the

Kiswahili, it is the medium of instruction at primary education while at tertiary education is

taught as compulsory subject at secondary education and as option at tertiary

education” (http://www.tanzania.go.tz/educationf.html).

For almost four decades now, there has been an ongoing debate on the medium of

instruction in Tanzania. As illustrated above, the main argument has been that English

accounts for the poor performance of students. However, the issue is not that simple and

there are many other factors involved that need to be taken into account in the debate. These

will be addressed in the following section.

3. English-in-education in Tanzania: analyzing language ideologies

What reasons underpin Tanzania’s language-in-education policy? Why did Nyerere in 1984

decide to implement the ELTSP and retain English as a medium of instruction, even though

this was counter to Elimu ya kujitegemea? Why have the presidential successors to Nyerere

not reformed the policy despite the vast evidence documented by researchers? In short, why

has English continued as the medium of instruction? To understand the issue, the attitudes

associated with English that emerged from the interviews conducted with teachers and

workshops carried out with students in the sampled schools must be analyzed. As Neke

(2003) observed, pro-English assumptions are interweaved “in a complex web that has

implications for other social issues, cultural processes and resource allocation both internally

and externally generated” (Neke, 2003: 150). To understand the attitudes associated with

English in Tanzania, it soon became clear that many of these strains can only be understood

within the context of Tanzanian society, while others have a more global scope. The attitudes

are divided within 2 categories, namely (1) attitudes related to English in the world and (2)

attitudes related to English in Tanzania. It has to be stressed that these two categories are

not fixed and all attitudes interface with one another and seem to be underpinned by similarly

25

http://www.tanzania.go.tz/educationf

http://www.tanzania.go.tz/educationf

strong language ideological, political and socio-cultural forces. All of this contributes to the

production and reproduction of the hegemony of English. Attitudes are shown in Table 3

Table 3: Attitudes on English in Tanzania and English in the world

English in Tanzania English in the world

1. English is needed to enhance job

opportunities and succeed in society

2. English is a gateway to personal

development

3. Knowing English means a higher status

in our society.

4. Knowing English builds confidence

5. Knowing English is being educated

1. English is the language of the world

2. English is an international language

3. English is the language of modernity

4. English is the language of globalization

5. Without English, Tanzania cannot develop

6. Without English Tanzania will become an

isolated village in a globalised world

7. Kiswahili is inadequate in its terminology

compared to English

8. English is the language of science and

technology

The following sections will elaborate how these must be understood in the context of a web

of strong ideological mechanisms underpinning 'Engl ish foreign language

teaching' (henceforth EFLT)7 that creates hegemony on a broader societal level. Studies

concerned with EFLT can generally be divided into three paradigms. First, there are those

who uncritically endorse the global spread of English and its use in educational settings all

around the world. Second, there are those who see ELFT as an important part of a post-

imperial and global-economic agenda that is externally imposed by the Western World. The

third camp emphasizes decisions about language as a personal choice by individual agents.

While the first paradigm is questionable, a careful analysis will demonstrate both the second

and the third paradigm as plausible explanations for Tanzania’s language-in-education policy.

26

7Some scholars refer to ‘English Language Teaching’ (see for example Phillipson, 2001) rather than

‘English as a Foreign Language Teaching’. Since English is a foreign language to the majority of

Tanzanians, I prefer the latter to refer to the use of English as a medium of instruction in Tanzania.

3.1. Language ideologies and English in the world

3.1.1. English and globalization: the spread of English

An intriguing argument made by many students and teachers was that English should remain

the medium of instruction because they perceive it to be an ‘international language’.

Kiswahili, however, is an international language as well. In Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania,

Kiswahili is an important language of communication and has the status of an official

language (Kiango 2005). It is spoken or understood by 80 to 100 million people and is taught

in numerous universities in North America, South America, Europe, Africa and Asia. There

are also Kiswahili programs on radio stations world-wide, including Radio Japan, Radio

South Korea, Deutsche Welle, Voice of America and Radio Vatican. In addition, there are a

number of Kiswahili speaking communities across Europe, Asia, North America and many

sub-Saharan countries other than Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda.

Although no one interviewed disagreed with these facts about their language, many students

and teachers, nevertheless, refused to view Kiswahili as a ‘language of the world’. Instead,

these individuals viewed English as ‘the language of globalization’, and ‘without English,

Tanzania would become an isolated village’. As one of the schoolteachers stated:

“[…] Today we live in a globalised world...we are globalizing like a global village…English has

become a global language and everywhere we go, we need to know English. So, if we start

using Kiswahili in secondary education we are going to be limited…” (Open field interviews:

appendix 2I, teacher 3)

Another teacher said:

“[...] I think English is the best because it is international. In this world now a days, the

language practiced in most of the countries is English. So, to practice Kiswahili as a medium

of communication also will continue to be the problem. There are some other countries

where Kiswahili is not the language... . So it is better to teach in English so that students can

communicate or can go to other countries for other studies in English. English is better

because we want a language that is used worldwide...” (Open field interviews: appendix 2J,

teacher 5)

In studying the language debate in Africa, scholars like Phillipson (1992&1997&2001), Mazrui

(1998&2004) and Pennycook (1998&2000) have addressed the important role English

27

occupies in the processes of globalization. To some scholars, the concept of globalization

refers to the large variety of international relations, the convergence of cultural aspects such

as music and food, the experience of worldwide connection through satellite broadcasting

and the internet. However, in the context of its relationship with the spread of English,

globalization is generally understood as the processes that link multiple regions across vast

distances in the world through exchanging networks of goods and services, capital, people

and ideas. These links, under this definition, lead to the political, economical and cultural

hegemony these processes generate.

Many decisions that are of importance to the entire world are conducted in English. In his

article on EFLT and globalization, Phillipson (2001) explains how English is the dominant

language of international politics and commerce and of international institutions such as the

United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Union (EU)

(Phillipson, 2001: 189). Furthermore, English is the main language of communication in the

North American Treaty Organization (NATO) military and UN peace-keeping operations.

Finally, the dominance of English is advanced worldwide through cultural icons such as

Hollywood developed productions, BBC World, and MTV World (Phillipson, 2001: 187). Thus,

the notion of English as a 'global language' may have less to do with demography or

geography, than with decision making in the existing global political and economic system.

The boundaries of the English language are expanding at an unprecedented tempo and

scale. A 1996 British Council survey estimated that there were already

“[…] over 1.400 million living in countries where English has official status. One out of five of

the world’s population speaks English to some level of competence... By the year 2000 it is

estimated that over one billion people will be learning English. English is the main language

of books, newspapers, airports and traffic control, international business and academic

conferences, science, technology, diplomacy, sport, pop music…” (cited in Goodman &

Graddol, 1996: 181).

For Crystal (1997), who belongs in the first paradigm described above, the spread of English

in the world should be seen as a tool that “presents us with unprecedented possibilities for

mutual understanding” (1997: viii). Although Crystal's’ work provides us with useful

information about the spread of English, his evaluation focuses entirely on its positive effects

even while articulating worrying information such as the fact that 70% out of 160 linguistic

journals are published exclusively in English (Crystal, 1997:85). Crystal does not see what

others like Phillipson (1997 & 2001) and Skutnabb-Kangas (2001) cannot seem to

28

emphasize enough: as more and more international communication takes place in the

language of wider communication (that is English), more and more languages are in danger.

In a 2001 article, Skutnabb-Kangas draws attention to the extinction of many of the worlds’

languages. She points out that there are three types of environments: biological, linguistical

and cultural. Diversity in all three of these environments is, according to Skutnabb-Kangas

(2001), being threatened by globalization and the role English plays in this process. She

further claims that there is a correlation and co-evolution between the three diversified areas,

and that if 50% to 60% of the worlds’ linguistic (and therefore cultural) diversity disappears

over the next 100 years, the very survival of humankind could potentially be in danger.

There are those scholars though, who believe that the forces behind globalization – most

notable the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – use English as an

instrument to serve and benefit their own neo-liberal agenda. Education is essential in this

process as it is a vital aspect of social and linguistic reproduction, and for the transmission of

knowledge, skills and attitudes. In the context of Africa, some scholars believe that language-

in-education policies, as prescribed by certain international bodies, are part of a strategic

plan to consolidate the contemporary world order and maintain the unequal distribution of

power, both in a global context as well as within African countries (see for example Phillipson

1997&2001; Mazrui 1998&2004;). For socio-linguists like Phillipson, the promotion of English

by the West is a means of maintaining Western socio-economic and cultural domination over

developing countries. For Phillipson, “the dominance of English is asserted and maintained

by the establishment and continues reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities

between English and other languages” (1992: 47). This all involves attitudes that revolve

around the relationship between English and national development.

3.1.2. English and national development: linguistic imperialism

In Tanzania, many of those interviewed believed that English as a medium of instruction will

lead to development. This assumption is intrinsic to the perception that ‘without English,

Tanzania cannot develop’. The dominance of English-in-education in many African countries

is largely based on Western ideas on the relationship between language, education and

development (Neke, 2003: 176). This relationship has assisted in spreading attitudes about

development which “become ideological on the understanding that language is located in

social action and can therefore be manipulated by powerful groups in society” (Neke, 2003:

176). These powerful groups, particularly international development agencies and donors,

have produced certain linguistic depictions of development. In turn, these depictions produce

29

constructions - like democracy and liberalization - that are entangled in the conditions

attached to loans and grants. The World Bank (cited in Mazrui, 2004) for example, argues

that proficiency in English may “help promote political stability and build national unity as well

as serve economic purposes” (Mazrui 2004: 43). It is therefore not surprising for many

people to associate English with national development. One of the teachers told me:

“[…] Maybe our economy is part of the problem. In Belgium the economy is good and you

don’t depend on anybody, you do everything on your own... But we as Tanzanians depend on

the outside world for everything...We need English to serve our economy...” (Open field

interviews: appendix 2I, teacher 4).

My response to the argument that Tanzania cannot be compared to a country like Belgium

because the latter is 'independent' and developed' is simple: all developed countries reached

such a stage by using their own languages. In that regard, as I mentioned before, some

scholars believe that the spread of English is a part of a post-imperial and essentially

capitalistic agenda. To socio-linguists such as Phillipson (1992, 2001), these attitudes are

best understood as 'linguistic imperialism'. Phillipson developed the notion of ‘linguistic

imperialism’ which occurs if “the lives of the speakers of a language are dominated by

another language to the point where they believe that they can and should use only that

foreign language when it comes to transactions dealing with the more advanced aspects of

life” (Phillipson 1992: 56). The idea behind linguistic imperialism is derived from Skutnabb-

Kangas’ concept of linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988). The latter coined the concept to

make a comparison between the hierarchisation on the basis of ‘race’ (racism), gender

(sexism) and language (linguicism). Linguicism refers to a set of ideologies, structures and

practices which are used to produce, reproduce, and legitimize an unequal distribution of

power and resources between groups defined by language (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988:13). For

Phillipson (1992), linguistic imperialism is a subtype of cultural imperialism in which structural

and cultural inequalities between English and other languages are created and recreated.

His main thesis is that the linguistic relations between the Centre (e.g. Britain and the United

States) and the Periphery (former British colonies) have been and continue to be those of a

dominant language (English) imposing itself on the languages of the Periphery. The outcome

is that indigenous languages in the Periphery are undervalued. This process, it is argued, is

accompanied by economic exploitation of the Periphery by the Centre. In Phillipsons’ words,

linguistic imperialism is:

“[…] shorthand for a multitude of activities, ideologies and structural relationships. Linguistic

imperialism takes place within an overarching structure of asymmetrical North/South

30

relations, where language interlocks with other dimensions, cultural (particularly in

education, science and the media), economic and political” (Phillipson, 1997: 239).

The theory of linguistic imperialism is criticized for varying reasons. What is disconcerting for

example, is the overgeneralization that the promotion of English necessarily implies a

depreciation of all local languages. In the same way, as Holborrow (1993) puts it, "not all

Englishes in the centre dominate, nor are all speakers in the periphery equally discriminated

against" (Holborrow, 1993: 359). Kachru (1997) offers a solution for such

overgeneralizations. He distinguishes three concentric circles to explain the spread and the

use of English in the world: the Inner Circle (containing Canada, the United States, the

United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia) is where English is the first language of the

majority of the population, the Outer Circle containing post-colonial English-using countries

such as Tanzania where English is spoken by only a minority of the population, and the

Expanding Circle which holds the rest of the world (Kachru, 1997: 214). Basically, each of

these circles characterized English by different factors such as population, prestige, and

functionality. However, Phillipson’s theory does deserve credit for raising some interesting

questions. This can be further illustrated through a closer examination of president Nyerere’s

decision to implement the ‘English Language Teaching Support Program’ (ELTSP).

This decision was clearly a political change of heart since it worked against the main

Ujamaa-philosophy of education as stated in the 'Education for Self-Reliance’ (ESR)

document. It even disregarded the earlier recommendations of local experts on the issue of

the language-in-policy and the governments’ own Education Commission. Despite all of this,

the Tanzanian government began to implement the ELTSP in 1986 as recommended by the

1984 Criper and Dodd study. Like previous studies on the language-in-education situation,

the Criper and Dodd study came to the conclusion that the use of English as a medium of

instruction deterred students from acquiring knowledge. However, it did not recommend a

change to Kiswahili. On the contrary, it recommended the strengthening of English in

education through an English language teaching support program. This contradiction raises

suspicion about the actual motives underlying the recommendation, particularly because the

actual implementation of the ELTSP was administered and funded by the British Overseas

Development Agency (ODA) through the British Council.

As Phillipson (2001) and Mazrui (2004) have argued, it is not a coincidence that the demand

for linguistic change in favor of Kiswahili was brought to an end in the 1980’s. In 1985,

Nyerere stepped down as the President of Tanzania. The end of the Nyerere era marked the

beginning of a period of intense pressure for privatization and structural adjustment for

31

Tanzania. Many African countries submitted to international donor agencies and their

draconian conditionalities. In Tanzania, negotiations with international donors, particularly the

IMF, started in the early 1980's. The negotiations were driven by food shortages resulting

from a drought, and problems with financial resources to purchase petroleum products and

other items needed for the maintenance of its economic sector (Roy-Campbell, 2001:

113-114). Self-reliance had to make way for an increased influence of international

organizations on domestic policies. Nyerere's successor, Ali Hassan Mwinyi, accepted an

IMF structural adjustment program (SAP) in 1986. Additional agreements between the IMF

and the Tanzanian government were signed in 1987, 1991 and 1996. Along with numerous

other socioeconomic consequences, this agreement meant that Tanzania lost the ability to

determine its own educational destiny. The 1986 SAP prescribed a decrease of

governmental subsidies in education (Mazrui: 2004). This implied, among other things, that

Tanzania could no longer invest in the necessary means (such as Kiswahili textbooks) to

make a transfer from English-medium to Kiswahili-medium education.

According to Roy-Campbell (2001), Yahya-Othman (1997), and others, it cannot be a

coincidence that soon after Tanzania submitted to the requirements of the World Bank and

the IMF in the 1980’s, the British ODA appeared with the million-dollar ELTSP project. It

seems possible that the government’s 'decision' to implement the ELTSP and strengthen

English as a medium of instruction was a strategy to accommodate the economic and

political pressures exerted by international bodies such as the British Council. The main aim

of the ELTSP was strengthening the teaching of English, which according to Phillipson (1997)

and Pennycook (1989) is an industry that uses curricula materials and textbooks to promote

the interests and values of the West. Scholars like Marzui (1998, 2004) and Phillipson (2001)

have drawn further attention to the role of international development agencies in rhetorically

supporting local languages, but channeling its resources into strengthening European

languages in Africa. Indeed, one might wonder why the British Council decided to invest

millions of dollars in the teaching of English, rather than the teaching of Kiswahili.

To achieve the ‘necessary’ English proficiency, international donor agencies claim to favor an

educational approach where instruction begins in a local language and switches to a second

language in a higher education level. Mazrui (2004:44) further notes that not only is the

World Bank in favor of local-language-instruction in primary education, it also claims to

believe in the damaging effects foreign-language-instruction can have on a child’s learning

progress in the early stages of education. One might ask why international donors, in spite of

their proclaimed conviction about the pedagogical and educational value of ‘mother-tongue’

instruction, have never raised the possibility of using African languages like Kiswahili beyond

32

the first years of the school cycle. Roy-Campbell (2001) Yahya-Othman (1997), Philllipson

(1992, 2001), Mazrui (2004) and others have claimed that behind the World Bank and the

IMF's alleged convictions is a hidden viewpoint that encourages the consolidation of imperial

languages both in Tanzania and in much of the developing world. These scholars argue that

favoring local-language-instruction in the early schooling years is motivated merely as a

means of facilitating the students’ acquisition of the imperial language at later educational

stages (Mazrui: 2004). Tanzania is one of the few African countries that subsequent to

independence replaced the imperial language in primary education with a local language

(Kiswahili), but continued using their old imperial language as the medium of instruction in

post-primary education. The World Bank, however, does not seem comfortable with this

model. In 1988, the World Bank made a comparative study between educational

performance in Kenya and Tanzania. The result of the study suggested that Tanzania’s

education quality was inferior to Kenya’s because the latter uses English in primary schools

and Tanzania does not. This conclusion sheds light on the contradictory nature of the World

Banks' alleged preference of favoring basic education in a more familiar local language.

Mazrui (2004) concludes:

“[…] the World Bank is speaking from both sides of its mouth. It gives the impression of being

philosophically in sympathy with educational instruction in local languages but proceeds to

pursue pro-imperial language policies in practice” (Mazrui, 2004: 49).

Proponents of linguistic imperialism believe that the promotion of EFLT by international

donors has been a way to maintain the hegemonic relations between the North and the

South, the rich and a poor, the dominant and dominated. By strategically connecting English

language teaching to notions such as development, language ideologies about English are

constructed and become inherent to people's attitudes about the need of English as a

medium of instruction. The association made by these organisations between English and

development is an unquestionable reminder of the discourses produced by and during the

colonial era. As stressed earlier, colonial language policies were based on the discourses of

Anglicism, emphasizing the European need to civilize the world through English (Pennycook,

1998). Equally, supra-national aid-organisations have continued to spread and economically

support the idea that speaking English is inherently positive (Pennycook, 2000:109). I will

further elaborate this point of view by discussing attitudes like ‘English is the language of

modernity’ and ‘Kiswahili is inadequate in its terminology’.

33

3.1.3.English and modernity: a colonial legacy

In an interview with Dr. Qorro, she made the following comment:

“[…] We have been trained to think that English is the world language… We are so endorsed

to this thinking that we feel English should replace all the other languages. If we had a magic

way of making our parents and our grand-parents speak English, we would do it. Whatever

price, we would pay it….. We think this way because it’s part of our colonial mentality, the

colonial thinking. This is not who we are meant to be. These are the kind of people the

colonial government wanted to create… .. It’s a mindset, an outcome of the educational

training we’ve received...Everyone thinks the best language is the language of the former

colonial master.... this is a colonial project. We think we fought for independence, we think

we are free, but we are not free at all” (Open field interviews: appendix 2A, Martha Qorro).

Dr. Qorro refers to the way colonialism made the colonized believe that Western languages

such as English - like other aspects of Western culture - were superior to their own

languages. The colonial language policy was a strategy to internalize this colonial ideology

into the minds of Tanzanians. In relation to the (language) politics of the Belgian colonizer in

Congo, Fabian (cited in Ranger: 1993:73) argues that the use and control of verbal means of

communication were not only the building blocks for colonial rule, but they were needed to

maintain the regimes. By controlling means of communication within a society, power could

be established and exerted (Fabian cited in Ranger, 1993: 73-74). As Pennycook (1998)

demonstrates, the impact of colonialism on the mentality of the colonized was so great that it

made the colonized question their own languages and cultural systems in general.

Pennycook (1998: 22) discusses the way in which colonial ideology entailed discourses of

the 'Self' and the 'Other' that were constructed in relation to English. He claims that these

constructions have remained central to the ideologies underpinning English language

teaching today. While defining the Other as primitive, childlike or backward, the Self was

simultaneously constructed as civilized, mature and modern. Hence, while constructing the

Other, colonialism also produced 'European culture' or the Self (Pennycook, 1998: 16). On a

'scale of civilization', Europe was created as 'developed', while Africa was 'underdeveloped'.

Likewise, dichotomies such as rational Europeans/irrational Africans, Christian Europeans/

immoral Africans, democratic Europeans/despotic Africans, were created and placed Europe

on the highest rung of the 'scale of civilization' (Pennycook, 1998: 47-49). For Pennycook

(1998: 47), the dichotomies of images of the Self/Other are cultural conditions both

generated by colonialism and enabling the colonial enterprise. Language in/and education

34

policies were crucial sites for this colonial cultural production because it reflected the colonial

ideology and at the same time produced it. Charles Grant (1746-1823), a British colonial

administrator in British India, was one of the pioneers emphasizing the 'importance' of the

use of English in colonial education. In his 'Observations of the state of society among the

Asiatic subjects of Great Britain' (1792), he claimed:

“[...]The true cure of darkness, is the introduction of light. The Hindoos err, because they are

ignorant; and their errors have never fairly been laid before them. The communication of our

light and knowledge to them, would prove to be the best remedy for their disorders…”(cited

in Evans, 2002: 264).

For Grant, it was crucial to use the English medium to bring 'light and knowledge' to Indian

society. He claimed that, through English-language education a new world would open for the

native population, and the 'errors' of Indian beliefs and customs could be corrected by

Western knowledge (Pennycook, 1998: 79-80). Grants' pro-English assumptions were similar

to those of the British colonial evangelical Macaulay, who arrived in India in the 1830's, and

Frederick Lugard (1858-1945), who outlined the reasons and methods for British Indirect rule

in Africa. As Evans (2002: 270) points out, Macaulay's case for English was based on the

belief that English literature and science was an intrinsic superior body of knowledge and

thought. In his most important work, 'The dual mandate in British tropical Africa' (1926),

Lugard expressed his belief in the civilizing role of British imperialism and the inferiority of the

African people. He asserted that, in order to civilize ‘the African’, it was necessary to convey

Western knowledge in a Western tongue (Pennycook, 1998: 119-120). He argued that:

“[….] In conclusion I would emphasize the value of English as the medium of instruction. If

we believe that British interests will be thus promoted, we believe equally firmly that

graduates, by the mastery of English, will acquire the key to a great literature and the

passport to a great trade. On the other hand we desire to secure the English language in the

high position it has acquired....it is necessary for a time to adopt an alien tongue as a

common medium for new thoughts and expression - as the nations of West did when Latin

was the language of the savant and of scientific literature - none would be more suitable then

English” (my italics) (Lugard, cited in Pennycook, 1998: 121).

Pennycook (1998) argues that all these colonial discourses produced by Grant, Macaulay,

Lugard and others, have produced cultural constructions that became part of the colonial

ideology and adhered to English (Pennycook, 1998: 5). Notions like development and

modernization were core ideological categories that became inherent to the dominant

language ideology (Blommaert, 1999). In the same way the West served as a model for the

35

‘development’ and the ‘modernization’ of colonies like Tanzania, English served as a model

for the ‘development’ and ‘modernization’ of Kiswahili. Blommaert (1999: 110) further notes

that colonial language ideology formed linguistic hierarchies in which English was seen as a

higher language than Kiswahili. Again, the dichotomies of the Self and the Other, the

developed and the undeveloped arise on a 'scale of civilization'. During colonization,

linguistic forms were only officially recognized as a ‘language’ if they were modeled,

transformed, and structured by Western experts, and had a written tradition. Since Kiswahili

did not meet these expectations, British colonizers considered it an underdeveloped and

inferior language (Blommaert, 1999: 110). This kind of ideology is what Woolard and

Schieffelin (1994) have called the Standard Language Ideology (SLI). According to the SLI,

beliefs about what is or not a ‘real language’ enter into strategies of social domination. In

addition, these beliefs have contributed to profound decisions about, for instance, the civility

of subjects of colonial domination (Woolard and Schieffelin, 1994: 63).

The perceptions of English being the medium of instruction in Tanzania because it is the

‘language of science and technology’ and because ‘Kiswahili is inadequate in its terminology’

are rooted in this ideology and underpin the English language teaching policy in Tanzania

(Blommaert, 1999). The idea of English as the only medium through which scientific and

technological development is made possible seems to be linked to an idea that postulates

Kiswahili as an inferior and underdeveloped language. In the words some of the

schoolteachers I interviewed:

“[…] Kiswahili has few terms. If we teach physics or biology, how should we do that? We do

not have enough terminology to do so... maybe we could improve Kiswahili…”(Open field


“[...] the language we use in our school (English), I call it professional... If we are teaching in

this language (English), you see, there are new words...If you would use Kiswahili, with those

terminologies which are not commonly used outside ...children would not be understood in

the outside world... .Kiswahili is not a professional language.(Open field interviews: appendix

2M, teacher 8).

“[...] Kiswahili, up to now, we don't have many scientific names...but in English they are

already written in English. It could change, but It will be costing us for changing to Kiswahili.

We will have to find new words and translate books, especially for sciences...” (Open field

interviews: appendix 2H, teacher 2).

36

These colonial ideas about the developed status of English continue to entrench the

legitimacy of English in people's minds. For example, when I asked a professor at the UDSM

why he decided to raise his children to speak English over Kiswahili, he simply said: Kiswahili

is an uncivilized language! In this context the enormous efforts made by Nyerere to ‘develop’

Kiswahili through institutions like BAKITA and TUKI could also be regarded as part of this

colonial legacy. BAKITA and TUKI were entrusted with the task of coining and standardizing

the Kiswahili language. Blommaert (1999: 114) notes that coining words in essence meant

the translation of existing terminology. Although there were multiple techniques to accomplish

this, the most important source through which new Kiswahili terminology was introduced has

always been English. In that regard, an appealing remark made by Massamba (in Blommaert

1994:217) is that English, consequently, will always be the source language through which

new Kiswahili terms are coined and thus it will always be superior to Kiswahili. This eternal

‘backlog’ of Kiswahili to the English source language noticeably underlies the argument that

Kiswahili is unable to meet the needs of 21st century science and technology because of its a

‘limited’ vocabulary.

Socio-linguists such as Roy-Campbell and Qorro (1997: 91) criticize this argument in

justifying Tanzania's language-in-education policy by noting that science and technology do

not ‘belong’ only to English (see for example China and Japan). Further, these scholars

question whether students can learn science and technology if they do not understand the

language through which the subject matter is taught. Analogous to Massamba (cited in

Blommaert 1994: 217), Dr. Kadeghe argued:

“[...]There is a very positive correlation between development of language on the one hand

and scientific and technological development on the other hand. Language cannot develop in

a vacuum. You would have to be good in marketing and in production, in economy, in making

machines...only then your language can also develop...as long as our socio-economical and

scientific development is low, no way is our language going to develop. Because, it will be

very 'outside' technological and all development which is out of context. I have never seen

languages being made by people, language is the cause of work and production. Through

production you create your own language. Words are created through the production

process...” (Open field interviews: appendix 2B, Michael Kadeghe).

Hence, Tanzania does not lack a language to put science and technology into words, rather,

it lacks the existence of basic conditions to develop science and technology. In other words,

scientific terminology does not precede innovation and discovery, but can only be developed

through scientific related work. Therefore, as Mulokozi (1997:83) argues, the Tanzanian

37

government needs to reorient its educational institutions towards innovation and discovery.

Once this process develops, Kiswahili will naturally serve as an instrument of such

transformation (Mulokozi 1997).

So far, arguments that are used to legitimize the spread of English and its continued use in

Tanzania and the rest of the world beyond the former British colonies have been highlighted.

The pressures from external forces that link development and aid to English, and use English

related discourses to fulfill their own economical and political agenda have also been

analyzed. Moreover, it was argued that the notion of English as ‘the language of science and

technology’, ‘the language of modernity’, ‘the language of the world’ etc. is rooted in a

powerful (language) ideology inherited partly from the colonial enterprise. Furthermore, this

ideology stills underpins current attitudes on English-in-education in Tanzania. At the core of

the matter lays a reality that English and language policies are being used as instruments of

action and power to create hegemony between people and societies in the world. However,

attitudes about why English is the medium of instruction in Tanzania also reveal another

reality and sheds light on forces inside Tanzanian society.

3.2. Language ideologies and English in Tanzania

Bamgbose (2003) discusses the notion of choice in the language of instruction debate by

pointing out that there is evidence other than linguistic imperialism as the reasons for the

dominance of English. Is English in post-colonial countries like Tanzania a free choice or are

there constraints that make the choice inevitable? In his 2003 study on post-imperial English,

Bamgbose (2003) compared 20 countries. Only 3 of them (Nigeria, Papua New Guinea and

Puerto Rico) specifically allow for the possibility that the dominance of English may have

been constrained by reasons other than free choice (Bamgbose, 2003: 421). These facts are

why there must be caution when making the argument that EFLT is an outcome of linguistic

imperialism. Claims of linguistic imperialism ignore the question of whether persons in

countries like Tanzania want to adopt English and maintain it as the language of instruction

for other reasons. This brings me to the aforesaid third paradigm, namely 'linguistic capital'.

Central to this paradigm is the vision that choices about language are decisions made by

individual agents in countries. This paradigm is discussed extensively by Brutt-Griffler (2002)

in her book 'World English; a study of its development'. She argues:

38

“Language spread and change cannot be conceived through conceptual frameworks that

involve historically active agents imposing their language on passive recipients… .It is,

rather, a process in which the essential actor is the acquiring speech community. In

developing an understanding of World English, macro-acquisition conceives the speech

community as bringing about language spread and change” (Brutt-Griffler, 2002: 23).

Although Brutt-Griffler is right that the use of English in the world has to take into

consideration the agency of non-mother tongue speakers rather than their passivity and

exploitation, she does not recognise that the powerful position of English in the world is at

least partly due to a colonial legacy and can thus be seen as a manifestation of linguistic

imperialism. Brutt-Griffler (2002: 57-59) admits that Lord Lugard was a racist, but denies that

English was spread for ideological purposes. However, one might argue that, if indirect rule,

as conceived by Lord Lugard, made Africans believe that they were not equal to Europeans

and that English was superior to their languages, this has a clear ideological outcome and

thus can be seen as linguistic imperialism. In my opinion, both paradigms of 'linguistic

imperialism' and 'linguistic capital' do not necessarily exclude one another, and both can

explain the language (in education) situation in Tanzania. Moreover, the paradigm of

'linguistic capital' will reveal that within Tanzanian society as well, English is considered as a

resource that has far-reaching implications for the distribution of socio-cultural, political and

economical power.

3.2.1. English, success and status: linguistic capital

In the interviews and conversations with students, teachers and other individuals, most

articulated a desire and willingness to learn how to communicate in English. One day, a

Tanzanian friend and I came across a dala dala 8 driver who wanted to start a conversation

with me. Of course he knew I was not Tanzanian, since every mzungu9 is considered to be a

foreigner. He wanted to know where I came from and what I was doing on a dala dala in Dar

es Salaam. As he was struggling to formulate his questions in English, the conductor began

laughing at him. Since the latter was speaking in Kiswahili and I could not understand a word

of what he was saying, I asked my friend to translate for me. The conductor was jokingly

telling the driver he should have learned English and added that that was the exact reason

why he was ‘just’ a dala dala driver in the first place. This example shows how important it is

39

8Dala dala buses are the main system of public transport in Tanzania.

9‘Mzungu’ is Kiswahili for ‘white person’ or ‘European person’.

to many Tanzanians to be able to speak English, not only for communicating with foreigners

but also to achieve access to better employment opportunities.

For similar reasons, many other people told me they prefer English - and not Kiswahili –to be

the medium of instruction in Tanzania. Some claimed EFLT is necessary to enhance their

children’s future employment prospects, while others said English proficiency is needed for

succeeding and achieving a higher status in society. Comparable thoughts were articulated

through the perception that 'knowing English builds confidence', that English is a 'gateway to

personal development' and that English 'defines you as educated'. For example, one teacher

stated:

“[...] we Tanzanians, we are so proud when we speak English. Sometimes you are seen as

important because you speak English. You feel proud when you speak English... Feeling that

speaking English... you are something, you are someone of the higher class...” (Open field


What is remarkable about all these perceptions is that they are not simply beliefs or ideas,

but reflect the reality that knowing English in Tanzania is an ultimate qualification for a

person’s upward mobility. The concept of ‘linguistic capital' can be used to further explain this

socio-linguistic situation.

The notion of ‘linguistic capital’ is related to Bourdieu’s views on cultural capital (1977&1991;

Bourdieu & Passeron 1990). According to Bourdieu, every society can be subdivided in

different but overlapping fields (markets or spheres) like economics, politics and culture. To

gain power within a field, one needs to obtain capital. Individuals can gain economic capital

(material wealth like funds or property), but also other forms of capital such as cultural capital

(skills, knowledge and other cultural attainments), symbolic capital (obtained prestige or

honor) and linguistic capital (language proficiency, the capacity to produce certain utterances,

etc.). The distribution of linguistic capital is related in specific ways to the distribution of other

forms of capital. It further determines the position of each individual within social space and

(re) produces power relations and class structures within society. In other words, differences

in accent, grammar, vocabulary and language, mark the social position of a speaker and

mirror his/her quantity of linguistic (and other) capital. (Thompson, 1992: 15-19). In their

study on the medium of instruction in Hong Kong, Morrison and Lui (2000) define linguistic

capital as “[…] fluency in, and comfort with, a high-status, world-wide language which is used

by groups who posses economic, social, cultural and political power and status in local and

global society” (Morrison and Lui, 2000: 473).

40

Two key concepts closely related to the linguistic capital thesis, are Bourdieu’s notions of

symbolic domination and symbolic violence. Symbolic domination is practiced through

symbolic violence which is an ‘invisible’ and unnoticed violence that is often ‘misrecognized’

as such and thereby ‘recognized’ as legitimate (his italics) (Thompson, 1992: 20). It is

misrecognized because the violence operates in a dialectic relation that requires participation

from everyone involved. In other words, the positions in a field are determined by power

relations in which the transition of cultural and other forms of capital are produced in a way

that reproduces the dominant positions of the dominating groups. Dominated groups

participate in this as they perceive certain ideas or practices as being ‘natural’.

Bourdieu and Passeron (1990: 73) argue that education plays an important role in the

process of symbolic domination. Schools are considered to be the portal through which

members of society acquire linguistic capital. This also implies that educational systems are

available to those who possess a significant amount of linguistic and cultural capital and

those who are able to acquire specific forms of education (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990:

115-116). Therefore, linguistic capital gives way to educational capital which (re)produces

cultural capital, economic capital, and other forms of capital. In Tanzania, this means that

students who possess, have access to, or develop linguistic capital in the English language,

have access to better opportunities in a market-driven society where English occupies a

dominant position in the world economy. Those without linguistic capital, however, have

fewer of these opportunities. This is what Morrison and Lui (2000: 473) refer to when they

state that linguistic capital is “both the medium and outcome of the pursuit of enhanced life

chances”. But, as Bourdieu’s theory emphasizes, not everybody has access to gain capital.

In the words of a school teacher:

“[... ]Only few Tanzanians speak English to each other because they see it as a sign for a

learned person, an educated person. And it's not that it's more simple to them than Kiswahili.

It's a sing for some kind of status, that they are wealthy, that they are educated...”(Open field

interviews: appendix 2G, teacher 1).

In Tanzania, only those who possess knowledge of English can gain upward mobility and

social reward. Since Kiswahili is the language used by the majority of Tanzanians in their

daily lives, not many children are able to practice or learn the language outside their school

environment. Hence, with the little or no English they acquire, children enter English-medium

secondary schools and gain no significant educational capital. But, who does have access to

educational capital and other forms of capital? The answer can be found within the power of

a small group of ‘watu wakubwa’ or ‘big-people’.

41

Earlier in this dissertation, Nyerere’s initial plan to make Kiswahili the medium of instruction

at all levels of the education system was discussed. Mazrui and Mazrui (1998, 137-138) note

that the value of Kiswahili under Ujamaa was increased while the value of English slowly

began to decline. However, due to uncertainties in Tanzania’s post-colonial economy, some

members of the elite or watu wakuba perceived Nyerere’s Kiswahili-in-education plan as a

threat to their own power. As Mazrui and Mazrui (1998) claim:

“These people perhaps saw the economic fortunes of their children in transnational terms.

Placed in key decision-making positions, they are said to have done little to support

Tanzania's Kiswahili policy, and in some cases have even subverted it." (Mazrui and Mazrui,

1998: 138).

Elite interests have always played an important role in the decision making concerning

language-in-education in Tanzania (Yahya-Othman, 1997: 15). Even under the 'socialistic'

Ujamaa, there were ‘watu wakuwba’ that considered EFLT as an instrument to distinguish

themselves from the rest of Tanzanians. English was - just like other manifestations of

upward mobility – an instrument to differentiate those who ‘made it’ in society from those who

'hadn't made it’ (Yahya-Othman, 1997: 15). This can also be regarded as a symptom of the

'failure' of Ujamaa to construct a classless egalitarian society by new forms of socialization

which could have used Kiswahili as its medium (Blommaert, 1999: 91). Moreover, the

maintenance of English in post-primary education resulted in social class formation,

something that clearly went counter to Ujamaa ideology. Under Ujamaa, exposure to English

was highly restricted. Most radio broadcasting and other media were completely in Kiswahili,

and English was negatively marked as the language of colonial dominance. However, a

minority of the higher educated and governmental business establishment had access to

English through literature, music, magazines, newspapers, and other forms of media

(Blommaert, 1999: 92). Hence, these elites were given a symbolic instrument of exclusion

through which they marked their status in Tanzanian society (Mazrui and Mazrui, 1998: 133).

When Tanzania's economy began deteriorating in the late 1970's and the country instituted

economic liberalization policies, the state no longer had a monopoly over education and the

plan to change the medium of instruction in post-primary education to Kiswahili was shelved.

Ever since, the linguistic balance has swung decisively in favor of English, though not always

at the expense of Kiswahili (Mazrui and Mazrui: 1998: 138). It is certainly true that many

Tanzanians are very proud of 'their' language. This, of course, is rooted in the creation of

Kiswahili as the language of the nation during the struggle for independence and particularly

during Tanzania’s Ujamaa-era. However, Kiswahili is not considered to be a valuable medium

for education because people perceive it to lack the capacity to express scientific or

42

technological terms adequately and it is not the language of the world. In one of the

classrooms in Zanaki Secondary School where I conducted observations, I found the

following slogans hanging on the same wall:

‘Kiswahili tukienzi’ and ‘tukipambe Kiswahili’ mean ‘let us honor Kiswahili’ and ‘let us be

proud of Kiswahili’. Just about one meter underneath these slogans was a sign saying

‘Speak English’. During my observations in different schools there was a constant tension

between valuing Kiswahili and valuing the language of the former colonial power. However,

as will be explained in the following chapter, the degree in which the English language is

valued over Kiswahili does differ from school to school. In other words, the hegemony of

English in schools varies in its manifestation.

While there are certain values attached to Kiswahili, the language is not a symbolic resource

through which one can gain status and prestige. English on the other hand is an element of

exclusion. Hence, by using it as a medium of instruction, it is part of symbolic domination by

the watu wakubwa because through the education system it reproduces and legitimizes

relations of power and knowledge implicated with English. As Martin Jones and Heller

(1996a:5) argue, education can do this, “not only because of its credentialising function, but

also because of the way it masks the real sources of inequality”. Here again, one sees the

complex mechanism in which language ideologies and education function as tools to create

and maintain a hegemonic society, and most importantly, naturalize relations of power. The

language in education policy in Tanzania makes people believe that any one has access to

power because English can be learned (Martin Jones and Heller 1996a&1996b). Though

most teachers interviewed recognized the learning problems English as a medium of

instruction was causing, only one saw a solution in Kiswahili-medium education. She argued:

[...] I think the solution is that you change the language from basic, the language of

instruction even in secondary level. I think they are speakers of Kiswahili, so let them learn in

43

that language also in secondary level...”(Data set 2: open field interviews: appendix 2G,

teacher 1).

The other teachers argued the language policy should change to English-medium education

throughout the entire school system. They believe that adopting English starting from primary

school will improve the English proficiency of pupils, and, by consequence, improve the

quality of education:

“[...]There is a problem. I think the government should put a clear and workeable policy

where English is used from kindergarden to primary to secondary to university level, so that

to solve the problem of communicating in English. And this can also solve the problem of

performance, that performance would be better in English....” (Open field interviews:

appendix 2I, teacher 3)

“[...] the main solution is to, at primary level, to practice English from there. You know that

primary is the source. When students face this problem from primary and then go to

secondary, the problem will exist. I think the solution is to insist on English language from

primary school...” (Open field interviews: appendix 2J, teacher 5).

“[...]You see, when I teach I also put in some Kiswahili words so that they understand. Maybe

if it Kiswahili they would have many hands up but now they cannot express themselves. So it

is difficult to make things, to learn....they can for example not write for themselves because of

the lack of knowledge of English. It is not for the teacher to write for them... maybe they

cannot read, summarize and so on. So there is a big problem unless we change the medium

of instruction to English at primary level as well” (Open field interviews: appendix 2L, teacher

7).

This shows how English is linked with quality education and Kiswahili with poor quality

education. Thus, the discourse emanating from the medium debate fails to make a clear

distinction between language and education. This explains the rise of private English medium

schools in Tanzania.

3.2.2. English is education: private education

Under Ujamaa, the state had the monopoly over education and no private (educational)

institutions were allowed. When Tanzania took the road to liberalization in the 1980's, the

44

pressure for privatization increased. However, the Education Act of 1978 stated all non-

government schools were required to provide technical education and thus excluded the

establishment of private primary schools. In 1995, the 1978 Act was replaced by the

‘Education Amendment act no. 10’ of the ‘Education and Training Policy’. This new Act

stipulated that all levels of education were open to private entities. Since primary education

was the only non-English educational sector, the boom in English medium primary schools

has been most significant since 1995. Of the 365 English medium primary schools registered

by the year 2007, only 67 were registered in the 1990’s (MoEVT). Private English medium

schools can be divided roughly into two categories. Within the first category are the

International schools that do not follow the national curriculum. These schools are the most

prestigious schools in the country. Tuition can be as much as 8.000/-Euro per annum, and

staff are mostly recruited from overseas (see for example 'International School of

Tanganyika'). The second category are non-international English medium private schools

which do follow the national curriculum and charge fees ranging from 30/- Euro to 500/- Euro

per annum (MoEVT). The two private schools I conducted observation at, where schools of

the second type.

As for public education, most individuals interviewed were dissatisfied with its quality. A major

part of this dissatisfaction is that children cannot speak English by the time they complete

Standard Seven and, consequently, find it difficult to follow lessons when they go to

secondary school where the medium of instruction is English. For this reason, the ‘poor

quality’ of government schools is equated to having Kiswahili as a medium of instruction.

Concerns of quality education (e.g. teachers, curriculum, materials, etc.) take second place

in people’s priorities. As Dr. Kadeghe told me:

“[…] Most of the parents send their children to private schools in the expectations that they

learn more English. They send them there to speak the English language, not for the content

of the education. They are happy when their child comes home and says: daddy! How are

you?!...Parents don’t want Kiswahili. He/she brought their child there because of English.

When you go to English primary or even nursery, you will see children speak good English….

Because of that, more parents who have money will send their children there because they

know English is a ladder for economic achievements. That’s what they think and that’s what it

is here…. All job-interviews are done in English. No matter how clever you are, as long as

you speak English…”(Open field interviews: appendix 2B, Michael Kadeghe).

Even parents who can ill-afford extra financial burdens do everything in their power to send

their children to private English-medium schools. One morning, while on my way to do

45

observations in Kenton High School, I witnessed a long line of children standing in front of

the school entrance. When I asked the headmaster what was going on he said only children

who had already paid the school fee of tshs. 50.000 (+- 30 Euro) were allowed to enter the

school. Those who had not paid yet, went back home and came back the next morning. One

of the children waiting told me his father was working near Arusha (about 646 km from Dar

es Salaam), trying to gather the money to pay for the boy’s school fee. One week later, after

coming back every morning, this boy was still waiting outside of that same school gate

hoping the headmaster would allow him to follow classes anyway. This example confirms the

unequal access to educational, linguistic and other forms of capital, and the ‘appetite’ of

parents for English medium private schools. Underpinning their ‘appetite’ lies the fact that

knowledge of English allows children to improve their performance in other subjects. This

leads parents and Tanzanians in general to hold the belief that knowledge of English is

education in and of itself. This is also reflected in what Professor Yahya-Othman was

referring to when she told me that concerns about falling academic standards at the

University, as well as on other educational levels, are actually concerns about students’

declining proficiency in English (Open field interviews: appendix 2C, Saida Yahya-Othman).

The belief that English is education can also explain the belief that having English as a

medium of instruction is the best way to learn English. As disturbing as these findings might

be, what appeared at least equally disturbing was the fact that, even though some English

medium private schools probably provide quality education, the few private schools I visited

did not seem to contribute any more to education, nor to the learning of the English

language, than the government-school. In fact, the majority of teachers I observed in the

private schools had comparatively the same, if not less, teaching qualifications than their

colleagues in the government schools. Their English proficiency also left much to be desired.

Those schools who do contribute to education do so not because (it seems in fact despite)

they use an English medium, but because of better resources (qualified teachers, computers,

libraries, etc.) available to them. Professor Rubagumya, who conducted research on the

quality of English medium private schools in Tanzania, claims:

“[…] my own argument has always been that ...some of these schools are actually very good,

but they’re not good because of English. They’re good because they have resources, they

have computers they have well trained teachers, they have school buses so kids are ferried

to school and back, they have the school lunches, all that makes a lot of difference. So, if

they seem to be doing well, I don’t really think it is because of English. It is because of these

other factors. I’m sure if you had the same school with Kiswahili medium with the same

facilities, they would probably do much better....”(Open field interviews: appendix 2F, Casmir

Rubagumya).

46

Only elite children can attend quality education in very expensive private schools. These

schools use English as a medium of instruction and are, more importantly, well equipped in

terms of resources and facilities. The quality of (English) teaching in the private schools I

observed, was not better than in government schools. The only difference was that children

were exposed to English much earlier than the children who go to public, Kiswahili medium

primary schools. The former might perform better in secondary education on all levels

because their proficiency in English is somewhat better. However, I doubt that these children

acquire any more knowledge than the majority of children in government schools. In

admitting Kiswahili would be a better fit to transfer knowledge, the owner of a private primary

school told me:

“[...] Why do people want to come to your school? They say they want English medium

education for there children... . Since I did not have money, I did not have a rich foundation, I

had to rely on fees to run the school. You have to look at the market: those who are willing to

pay want an English medium school... .I do think Kiswahili-medium teaching would be better,

it would make considerable difference in the quality of education. It wouldn't solve all our

problems but it would be a step in the right direction...”(Open field interviews: appendix 2E,

Josephat Rugemalira).

Hence, in confusing English proficiency with educational quality, parents are eager to send

their children to English medium private schools. However, some people seem to take

advantage of parents' demand for these type of schools to make money. Under the cloak of

'English medium education', this owner claims to offers parents quality education for their

children, when in reality he realizes Kiswahili as a medium of instruction would have a much

higher educational value. While some private schools do make contributions to education,

unfortunately this is a commodity which can only be enjoyed by those with significant

financial power.

4. Conclusion

The language-in-education question in Tanzania is about power. The choice for English is a

political choice that (re)distributes different forms of capital in a global context as well as

within Tanzanian society. In this chapter, I suggested that the two concepts of 'linguistic

imperialism' as a colonial legacy and 'linguistic capital' can be used to explain pro-English

attitudes in Tanzania. Historically, English was the language of the British colonial power.

Today the powerful position of English in Tanzania is at least partly due to its colonial legacy

47

and can thus be said to be a manifestation of linguistic imperialism. However, pro-English as

a medium of instruction attitudes in Tanzania are also motivated by the perceived economic

and social opportunities that children are likely to enjoy as a result of English language

competence. The driving force then is linguistic capital, rather than acquiescence in the

linguistic imperialist order. On the other hand, as Morrison and Lui (2000: 475) argue, it can

be said that “linguistic capital developed out of linguistic imperialism”.

So far, I have shown how language ideologies both feed and naturalize relations of power. I

argued that, language-in/and education is a very effective tool to unequally distribute forms of

capital and (re)produce hegemony in and between societies. The English-in-education

question in Tanzania was thereby placed in a broader macro-societal context of power

structures and dominant (language) ideologies. However, these structures and ideologies are

not static. Although the hegemony of English is made legitimate through education,

education is also a powerful arena where this hegemony and legitimacy is being negotiated,

transformed, and contested. This occurs in and through interaction. Therefore, the next

chapter will focus on the micro-level of interactional behavior in classrooms.

48

Chapter 3: The policy in (inter)action: (de)constructing and

negotiating (language) legitimacy in the micro-politics of

classroom interaction

1. Introduction: from macro to micro

In the previous chapter, the particular role English in/and education holds in the production of

unequal relations of power in Tanzania was outlined. Through analyzing pro-English as a

medium of instruction assumptions, the language-in-education situation needs to be

understood in a broader context of the hegemonic outcome of language ideologies.

Throughout historical processes such as colonialism, contemporary dynamics of post-

colonialism, globalization, and inter-societal class structures, these language ideologies have

been (1) created and utilized by dominant groups and (2) naturalized through educational

institutions. In order to provide a fuller understanding, this chapter will examine the actual

language practices in Tanzanian classrooms. As Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) argued,

schools, and particularly classrooms, play a key role in the production and reproduction of

social identities and relations of power. This is because like all classrooms, the bilingual

classrooms observed are sites of struggle related to inclusion, exclusion, privilege, and

disadvantage. They are places where social identity and relation of power are established.

Choices at the (macro-) national-political and the (semi-macro) institutional level, about

language policies, curriculum content and resources are inherently ideological. These

choices have significant implications for the construction of classroom interaction,

knowledge, authority, and (cultural) identity. All of these aspects are constantly negotiated in

the micro-politics of the bilingual interaction and are the reasons why classrooms are not

neutral zones. Following Heller and Martin-Jones (1996b:128), I consider discursive

practices in classrooms as “activities that contribute, albeit unwittingly, to the production and

re-production of hegemonic relations”, but can also contest the legitimacy of the prevailing

symbolic order.

As the title of this chapter suggests, the concept of language legitimacy is central to what will

follow. In the Tanzanian case, English is the legitimate language because it is perceived to be

the language of knowledge, of science and technology, and of modernity. Through

implementing an English-in-education policy, this legitimacy is (re)enforced which, in turn,

(re)produces the hegemony of English in Tanzanian society. In the sampled schools, English

is the legitimate language of official discourse in written and oral work. In classroom

49

interaction, English is preferred and Kiswahili is dispreferred. In examining code-switching

from a conversation analytic perspective, it will be shown how legitimate language is

constructed, negotiated and contested in and through interaction. Further, the analysis will

reveal the relationship among the different dimensions of legitimate language. These

dimensions include, students' and teachers' access to the languages at issue, what

knowledge is mediated and made legitimate through these languages, the authority of who

decides what counts as legitimate knowledge, through what language that knowledge has to

be displayed, and the relation between legitimate language and (cultural) identity. The

analysis mainly focuses on the construction and negotiation of legitimacy through the

practice of code-switching. The use of different languages at the micro-level and its

implications need to be understood with reference to power relationships and ideological

forces operating at a broader societal level. However, the analysis will also draw on

interactional excerpts where only English is used, because here too, different dimensions of

English legitimacy are negotiated.

2. The role of semi-macro language politics

At the semi-macro level, or the language-policy at the institutional level, the 3 schools

sampled all had the ‘English-Only’ regulation. The government-secondary school followed

the guidelines of the 'Tanzanian Educational and Training Policy' (1995), while both the

private primary and secondary school had established their own ‘English-only’ rule. However,

the way the hegemony of English manifested itself in these schools varied significantly. In

Kenton High School, the ideological hegemony of English was most absolute. Above every

classroom door, there was an 'English-Only' sign and Kiswahili was only spoken among

students on the playground. On a rare occasion, students would switch to Kiswahili in the

classroom, but this only occurred at times when teachers were not present. If a teacher was

present, students would immediately be told to speak English and if they resisted, the

'offender' would be forced to leave the classroom or write the 'I have to speak English'

sentence up to 100 times on a chalkboard. Every class had a so called 'class responsible'

which is a student appointed with the task of monitoring the room when no teacher was

present. Multiple times, I observed a 'class responsible' demanding his/her classmates to

speak English when they were using Kiswahili. In many ways, the class responsible’s

enforcement of English-Only trains a younger generation in elite hierarchies and what they

must prepare for in Tanzanian society. The English-only rule had a severe impact on daily

interaction in classrooms. Participants knew the consequences of contravening the rule, so

classroom interaction occurred almost completely through the English medium. One time,

50

when a student asked to answer a teacher's question in Kiswahili, the teacher brusquely

said: no!. The student did not appear to be capable of formulating an answer in English, and

by consequence, no answer at all was given. Classroom interaction in Kenton High School

was highly characterized by teachers engaged in an English monologue while students sat

passive, quiet and disciplined. Because the hegemony of English in this school was so

extreme, hardly any data was gathered where one could see the legitimacy of English being

negotiated or contested. Except for 1 example, all excerpts used in this dissertation derive

from classroom interaction observed in the other two sampled schools.

In the private primary Hekima Waldorf School, the hegemony of English was less absolute,

and there was a broader range of negotiating and contesting this hegemony in the micro-

politics of classroom interaction. No physical 'speak English' or 'English only' signs were

visible and students were not punished when breaking the 'English-only' rule. Both teachers

and students frequently switched to Kiswahili. However, when this was not a teacher-led

action, the teacher would always remind the 'offender' that the school was English medium

and no Kiswahili should be spoken. In excerpt 1, for example, a student (s2) finished an

assignment and said:

Excerpt 1 (appendix 1F)10:

101. s2: ((l)nimemaliza)

i finished

102 t: ((l)=in english please)

It can also be argued that the hegemony of English in this school was less absolute because

the language was a complete new language for the pupils and it was harder to force them to

speak and learn through English. Due to their young age, children were also active, less

disciplined, and constantly chatting and challenging each other. The following excerpt

illustrates this:

Excerpt 2 (appendix 1F)11

15. t: what is freedom?

16. s1: freedom is the word which present/ (1) like somebody (01) for example wants their freedom to be out//

17. s2: ((to s1)) ((laughs)) aaaa aah wewe unaboa wewe

51

10Similar examples can be found in: appendix 1F lines 21-23 & 67-68.

11Similar examples can be found in: appendix 1H lines 8-10 & 65-80.

you are boring you

18: s1: ((to s2)) na wewe unaboa mdomo wako mbaya toka hapa shut up

and you are boring too you got a bad mouth go away

19. s1: freedom are like people they

20. t: =((interrupts)) they just wanna know but they not what they are//

21. s1: freedom is eeeh (2) unamwachia mtu

letting go of someone

22. t: =((l) in english)

In excerpt 2, a student (s1) tries to define 'freedom'. As seen in line 16, the student is

struggling with the English language. In line 17, another student (s2) starts laughing and

challenging s1 in Kiswahili. Also using Kiwahili, s2 responds to s1's action in line 18. In the

Hekima Waldorf School, students always addressed each other in Kiswahili. This was also a

fact in the two other schools but, due to their rather effusive behavior and the lack of

disciplinary actions, the use of Kiswahili among pupils in Hekima Waldorf classrooms

occurred much more frequent. In line 19, s1 switches back to English and continues his

attempt to define 'freedom'. However, as indexed by the hesitation and the 2 second interval

in line 21, the English language forms a barrier for s1 to express himself adequately. He

switches to Kiswahili but the teacher in line 22 immediately 'reminds' him to speak English.

In the government school, Zanaki Secondary School, these kinds of 'reminders' occurred

less frequently. Although the national policy was followed and the official medium of

instruction is English, no punishments were attached to the use of Kiswahili and both

students and teachers frequently code-switched. However, teaching still pre-dominantly

occurred through the English medium.

The hegemony of English in the 3 schools varied according to semi-macro politics. In all 3

schools, however, the ‘English-Only’ rule was impossible to enforce. Having observed this,

one might instantly see that the impracticability of enforcing a monolingual English-Only

policy is in itself a testament to the illogical nature of such a policy in a multilingual

environment. This can perhaps be traced to what Phillipson (2001) has referred to as the

‘monolingual fallacy’; that is, the principle that language is best taught monolingual. Still, the

very existence of such a monolingual policy does give pupils the impression that English is

the only legitimate language for education and knowledge creation. Both teachers and

students code-switched. Of the 12 teachers interviewed, 11 admitted to code-switch between

52

English and Kiswahili. They said the main reason for this was trying to enable pupils to

understand better what they were being taught. As one teacher said:

“[…]Sometimes I switch to Kiswahili. When I see that they do not understand me completely

then I have to switch into Kiswahili, although we are not allowed to, to give them a

translation” (Open field interviews: appendix 2K, teacher 6).

The practice of code-switching at the micro-level needs to be understood with reference to its

relationship with ideological forces operating on a broader societal level. Upon focusing on

code-switching from conversation analytic (CA) and sociolinguistic perspectives, it is clear

that a micro-ethnographic study of classroom code-switching in Dar es Salaam cannot be

considered merely ‘micro’ in its implications if classrooms are seen as discursive sites for the

(re)production or challenging of (linguistic) ideologies, hierarchies, legitimacy and the

hegemony in Tanzanian society and beyond.

3. ‘Bilingual’ classroom interaction: theoretical framework

3.1. Code-switching: a definition

Code-switching is a widely adopted concept within linguistics and is also used in a variety of

related fields. The concept has been studied from many perspectives, including linguistics,

psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and anthropology. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons

why there has been no consensus on the definition of this linguistic phenomenon. Many

scholars, however, use a definition of code-switching similar to Heller (1988:1) who argues

code-switching is “the use of more than one language in the course of a single

communicative episode”. Even Auer and Myers-Scotton, who largely disagree on the how’s

and why’s of code switching, nonetheless sound relatively similar in their definitions of the

phenomenon. Auer (1984:1) refers to “the alternating use of more than one language”, while

Myers-Scotton (1993:vii) defines it as “the use of two or more languages in the same

conversation”. In this dissertation, code-switching, in its most broad understanding, will be

referred to as the alternating use of two linguistic varieties in the same conversation. In

accordance with common practice in many classroom code-switching studies, both code-

mixing (intra-sentential alternation) and code-switching (alternation at the inter-sentential

level) will be referred to by the umbrella term ‘code-switching’.

53

3.2. Previous studies

Classroom code-switching is a wide-spread global phenomenon but it presents a variable

daily practice that is complex for much of the world’s population. Speakers’ code-switching at

different moments in a single conversation has been extensively studied, initially by

ethnographic linguistics (Gumperz & Hymes 1972) and later on through the frameworks of

interactional sociolinguistics and conversational analysis (Auer, 1984). As Martin-Jones

(1995:90) stated, most research on classroom code-switching has been undertaken in

settings where there is an ongoing discussion regarding a language-in-education policy. The

reason for this is what Wei and Martin (2008:1) call the ‘the clash’ between what occurs in

practice, at the classroom level, and the policies structurally imposed from above. The

literature on classroom code-switching is heavily focused on unfolding these kinds of

tensions. For example, Lin (1996) talks about ‘linguistic segregation’ in Hong Kong Schools,

Arthur (1996) addresses the issue of ‘code-switching and collusion’ in Botswana primary

schools, Unamuno (2008) analyzes the role played by Catalan and Spanish code-switching

in Barcelona classrooms. However, these studies are significantly different from earlier

studies on the topic of classroom code-switching.

Early studies focused on the communicative functions of code switching and the frequency

with which particular languages were employed to perform different functions. Many of these

studies were conducted in bilingual classrooms in the United States and only a few were

second or foreign language classrooms. Classroom utterances were usually coded by the

observer with a functional system yielding frequency counts of distribution of L1 and L2 over

different functional categories (Martin-Jones 1995). Martin-Jones (1995) gives the examples

of studies conducted by Milk (1981) and Guthrie (1984) that both put emphasis on the

analysis of classroom discourse functions. Typologies of code-switching behavior were

organized, and particular instances of code-switching were ascribed to particular functional

categories. Although I shall refer later to procedures for revealing such functions as they

become manifest in interaction, I note here that the analysis by researchers such as Milk

(1981) and Guthrie (1984) are difficult to replicate in practice. As Auer (1995) points out,

typologies or lists of functions can be problematic because they portray functional categories

as stable and compartmentalized entities. For example, no sequential analysis is conducted

to demonstrate what exactly is meant by a certain function and how this function can have

very different conversational structures. Further, such a list hardly tells us anything about why

and how code-switching might have a conversational function or meaning. This implies that

“a list itself can hardly ever be a close one” (Auer , 1995: 120-122). Later studies (Heller:

1988&2001; Lin: 1996; Martin-Jones: 1996&2001; Ndaypfukamiye, 1996; and Razfar, 2005)

54

have, to varying degrees, gone beyond ‘simple’ listing. Instead, they draw on a number of

research approaches from sociolinguistics and ethnography of communication (Goffman:

1974; Gumperz:1982), conversation analysis (Auer, 1995), and critical social theory

(Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990; Bernstein 1974, 1996) to study classroom code-switching.

This dissertation will mostly follow the trend of scholars such as Heller and Martin-Jones who

utilize critical social theory and connect micro-interactional functions of code-switching in the

classroom to larger societal dynamics. In doing this, I draw on sociolinguistic perspectives

and analytical methods of conversation analysis (CA) applied to educational settings.

3.3. CA and institutional setting

Conversation analysis (CA) was developed in the 1960s through the work of Emanuel

Schegloff, Gail Jefferson and the late Harvey Sacks. CA seeks to describe the underlying

procedures through which orderly and understandable social interaction is made possible.

The excerpts discussed in this dissertation are examples of naturally occurring interaction

observed in a range of classrooms in the aforementioned schools in Dar es Salaam. Hence,

the interaction is taking place in an institutional setting. Most of the early work within

conversation analysis focused on what is referred to as ‘ordinary conversation’. Heritage

(2005: 104) defines this type of conversation as forms of interaction that are “not confined to

specialized settings or to the execution of particular tasks”. In the late 1970’s, however, some

CA scholars began focusing on more specific environments in which the objectives of the

participants were narrowed and institutionally specific. This entails restrictions in the nature of

interactional contributions where conversation is understood in terms of an institutional and

activity-specific inferential framework (Heritage, 2005: 104).

Conversation analysts of institutional talk build upon fundamental findings of the CA-tradition

as to examine the way in which social institutions operate in conversation. The point of

departure in conversation analysis, is the view that context is couched in interaction, and is

thereby created, invoked and directed throughout participants’ actions. This means no a-

priori assumptions are made and it is only through an exhaustive analysis of interaction

details that a relevant surrounding context can be identified. It must be stressed though, that

the CA claim is not that social structures such as culture do not exist except in interaction.

However, the methodological imperatives prescribe that the analysis is ground in the details

of the interaction. For conversation analysts, no details of interaction are accidental,

unstructured, or irrelevant (Heritage, 1984: 241), and sequence organization, or the

succession or sequence of multiple participants’ actions, plays a crucial role. The importance

55

of sequence organization can be summarized in terms of three fundamental principles, all

related to the way participants contextually orientate to interaction. First, all actions are

‘context-shaped’ and in constructing their action, participants address themselves to

preceding, and most commonly immediate preceding, actions. Second, actions are also

‘context-renewing’ in that they help constitute the frame of relevance that will shape the

subsequent action (Heritage 1984). And, third, in producing their next action, participants

show an understanding of a prior action. This understanding will be confirmed or become the

object of repair in any third turn in an ongoing sequence. Through this process they become

mutual understandings through a sequential architecture of intersubjectivity (Heritage, 2005:

105). The double contextuality (i.e. context renewing and context shaped) is closely tied to

the principle of ‘adjacency pairs’, whose central characteristic is the rule that a current action

(a 'first pair part’) requires the production of a reciprocal action (or ‘second pair part’) at the

first possible opportunity after the completion of the first. This principle is clearly entangled

with certain expectation patterns. This is why the structure of adjacency pairs can be seen as

the product of speakers’ shared orientations and expectations. It is important to meet the

patterns of expectation as to avoid conflict and preserve social solidarity among participants.

CA introduced the notion ‘preference organization’ to refer to “the format of agreements,

which is labelled as the ‘preferred’ action turn shape and the disagreement format is called

the ‘preferred’ action turn shape” (Pomerantz, 1984: 64). Underlying the reasoning of

preference organization is the idea that there are differences in the ‘design’ of positive and

negative alternatives (acceptance/rejection, confession/denial, etc.). For example, preferred

actions are direct and generally produced without hesitations or delay, while dispreferred

actions are more likely to be produced with delay, hesitations and indirectedness. The

concept of 'preference' has been frequently misunderstood, as Boyle (2000) demonstrates.

Bilmes (1988:162) describes it as “one of the most general and frequently mentioned

analytical notions in CA”. However, he also notes that it has been construed “in a variety of

mutually incompatible, and sometimes methodologically questionable ways” (Bilmes,

1988:162). The reason for this is the lack of a clear and practical defenition of preference.

Preference is often perceived to be related to notions of ‘liking’ or ‘wanting’ to do something

but, as Boyle (2000) argues, preference is much more a matter of issues like affiliation and

disaffiliation, seeing and noticeability, and accountability and sanctionability in relation to

social action.

The principles of adjacency and preference are closely linked to what is called the turn-taking

organisation for conversation. This means that turns are allocated among participants by

reference to a set of rules. For Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (cited in Heritage, 1984: 263)

56

the rules “can be viewed as a sharing device by means of which a scarce resource – the

opportunity to speak- is distributed among speakers”.

All these features form a basic theoretical framework for conversation analysis of ‘ordinary

conversation’ and ‘institutional conversation’. However, according to conversation analysts,

the latter is characterized by some aspects of interaction which are often cited to distinguish

this type of conversation from ‘ordinary conversation’. According to Drew and Heritage

(1992), institutional talk can be typified by three basic features. First, the interaction is goal-

oriented. In other words, participants’ interaction is organized in a way to orientate itself to

the institutional goal. The second feature entails the influence of interaction by “social and

particular constraints on what one or both the participants will treat as allowable contributions

to the business at hand”. A third and last feature of institutional interaction is that it can be

associated with inferential frameworks and procedures that are particular to specific

institutional contexts (Drew and Heritage, 1992: 22). These features may contribute to family

resemblances among cases of institutional conversation. However, it must be stressed that

there cannot be a fixed distinction between ordinary and institutional conversation, nor in a

single interactional event. Drew and Heritage (1992) have shown how institutional talk is not

necessarily bound to specific physical and symbolic setting such as classrooms, courts or

hospitals. This type of conversations can – just like ordinary conversations – occur

everywhere. Nevertheless, the ensemble of various features from conversational practice

may contribute to what Drew and Heritage (1992) have called a unique ‘fingerprint’ for every

institutional form of interaction. This fingerprint is comprised of “a set of interactional

practices differentiating each form both from other institutional forms and from the baseline of

mundane conversational interaction itself” (Drew and Heritage, 1992: 26). These interactional

practices are related to three concepts central to the analytical framework of CA: sequence

organization, turn-taking and repair procedures.

3.4. Code-switching as a contextualization cue

The CA approach to code-switching was developed against the background of a tendency to

explain code-switching behavior by attributing specific meanings to the switches and by

assuming that speakers intend these meanings to be perceived by their hearers. CA,

however, sees the meaning of code-switching emerging out of the sequential and negotiated

development of conversational interaction (Stroud, 1998: 322). It attempts to reveal the

underlying procedural apparatus by which participants arrive at local interpretations of

language choice (Auer, 1984: 3). Any interpretation of the meaning of code-switching - or

57

what Wei (1999: 163) called the broad why questions - must come after a detailed analysis of

how participants locally constitute the interaction. This contrasts sharply from, for example,

Meyers-Scotton’s markedness model, which is analyst-orientated and tends to use intuitive

categories as a basis for the description of code-switching. In the words of Wei (1999):

“[….] The markedness theory of code-switching explicitly rejects the idea op local creation of

social meaning and places its emphasis on the analyst’s perception of the correlation

between one linguistic variety and a particular interaction type. The indexical value of the cs

is derived from the analysts’ perceptions. CS itself is not understood to have any interactional

significance” (Wei, 1999: 162).

Hence, CA is in favor of an interpretative approach based on detailed, turn-by-turn analysis

of code-switching. The question CA puts forward is how the meaning of code-switching is

constructed through interaction, and how aspects such as identity, authority and extra-

linguistic context are presented, understood, accepted or rejected, and transformed in the

process of interaction (Li Wei, 1999: 163). Auer (1990), one of the pioneering CA academics

of interaction and code-switching, constructed a framework for analyzing code-switching by

building upon Gumperz’ (1982) notion of contextualization cues. Gumperz defined these

contextualization cues as follows:

“Constellations of surface features of message form are the means by which speakers signal

and listeners interpret whet the activity is, how semantic content it to be understood and how

each sentence relates to what precedes or follow. These features are referred to as

contextualization cues” (Gumperz, 1982: 131).

Code-switching is one of a number of possible contextualization cues for constructing and

interpreting meaning in a social context (Gumperz, 1982). Auer (1995) identified two means

by which code-contrast can serve as a contextualization cue: ‘discourse-related’ and

‘participant-related’ code-switching. The first type contextualizes some feature of

conversation, i.e. marking topic change, participants, or activity type. It is speaker-oriented

because it serves as a resource for accomplishing different communicative acts at specific

points within interactional sequences. The second type is typified by patterns of ‘preference-

related code-switching’. In this case, code-switching is hearer-oriented and accounts for

participant’s preference for a certain language over another (Auer, 1995: 125-126). However,

the underlying reasons for a certain preference can vary. Auer (1995) speaks of ideological

preference to refer to preference-related code-switches that are deliberate decisions based

on political consideration. On the other hand, preference may also be influenced by

58

differences in participants’ competences in certain languages. Code-switching in classroom

interactions is often described as participant-related, motivated by both 'linguistic

competence' (the students’ lack of competence, and the teacher’s intention to facilitate the

interlocutors’ comprehension) and 'ideological preference' (what is based on macro and/or

semi-macro political consideration). However, instances of discourse-related code-switching

may also occur in the classroom context. As Auer (1995) himself recognizes, participant-

related code-switching and discourse-related code-switching are not mutually exclusive

categories. It is often difficult to maintain a clear distinction in practice.

3.5. Fingerprints of ‘bilingual’ classroom interaction

3.5.1. ‘Bilingualism’

The institutional interaction observed can be characterized by a number of fingerprints. As

previously stated, in the 3 schools sampled all participants were subject to an ‘English-Only’

regulation but, Kiswahili too was used in varying degrees. Hence, one of the fingerprints

identified was the use of two languages and the practice of code-switching between them.

CA studies on code-switching in classrooms often describe these kinds of bilingual

interaction settings as ‘second language classroom interaction’. In this context, the notion of

‘second language’ refers to all languages acquired after the learning of a mother tongue. In

the sociolinguistic setting of a classroom in Tanzania, both the notions of ‘second language’

and ‘mother tongue’ are problematic. In Tanzania, 90% of the population speaks and

understands Kiswahili (Brock-Utne, 2006: 19), but this does not mean all Kiswahili speakers

acquired this language as a mother tongue. Yahya-Othman (1997) describes the linguistic

situation in Tanzania as follows:

“[...] an educated Tanzanian would probably start his life in one or other of the 120 ethnic

languages..., conduct part of his/her studies in Kiswahili, receive the better and more

demanding part of his/her education in English, a foreign language, and once adult,

occasionally find difficulty in talking to his/her grandmother in any of these

languages” (Yahya-Othman, 1997: 1).

Some people acquire Kiswahili simultaneously with other ‘first’ languages, while others learn

it as a second or a third language. Hence, when children are instructed through the English

medium, they are being instructed through a second, third, or even fourth language. Since all

participants in any class situation learn to speak and understand Kiswahili before acquiring

59

proficiency in English, Kiswahili will be referred to as the first language (L1) and English will

be labeled as the second language (L2).

3.5.2. Interactional architecture

Traditional work on classroom discourse established the teacher-directed interactional

sequence or Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) as one of the more familiar features of

knowledge construction in classroom talk (Mehan, 1979). These studies often assume that

the IRE structure allows teachers to control classroom discourse, both in terms of subject

and language choice, because they are the ones who ask the questions, orient the students’

responses, and evaluate their answers. For example in excerpt 3, which was recorded during

a Form 2 History class in Zanaki Secondary School, the teacher inquired about the impact

and effects from the arrival of the Oman Arabs on the East-African coast.

Excerpt 3 (appendix 1C):

221. s9: kiswahili culture?

222. t: yes we can say at this time because there were many traders going even into the interior when they were euhm looking for (0.5)

223. ivory for slaves /therefore even some the kiswahili language and kiswahili culture went all the way into the mainland of east africa//

224. and others?

225. ((t looks at s10) yes )

226. s10: =spreading of islamic religion//

227. t: yes i suppose that we have said spread of islamic religions as the traders went in to the interior also they carried them/

228. euhm there euhm value of islamic religion

229. one of you said the same thing?

230. any other thing? yes?

231. s11: ((s)the exploitation of both natural and human resources)

In line 221, s9 formulates an answer, which is followed by a positive evaluation from the

teacher in line 222. In the next line, the teacher initiates the next question by asking whether

there are any other consequences of the arrival of the Oman Arabs. The question is followed

by a response from s10 in line 226. This response is, again, positively evaluated by the

teacher in the next turn. Immediately after evaluating s10’s answer, the teacher initiates the

next question which is responded by s11 in line 231. This example shows a clear IRE

sequence. However, studies from scholars such as Candela (1999) reveal that the IRE

60

structure of discourse does not always imply that the teacher is in control of classroom

interaction and occasionally this structure can be deconstructed. Moreover, as will be

analyzed later, the IRE format does not always define who is in control of what is being said

and how it is said. As Seedhouse (2004: 163) argued, the IRE pattern primarily only applies

when learners produce a correct answer. This was clearly the case in excerpt 3, where the

teacher produces overt and direct positive evaluations instigated by the word ‘yes’ (line 142 &

147). Seedhouse (2004) builds on the IRE-thesis in his CA-study on the interactional

architecture of second language learning classrooms. He recognizes 3 features

characterizing the unique fingerprint of bilingual class interaction. According to Seedhouse

(2004):

“(1) Language is both the vehicle and object of instruction. (2) There is a reflexive

relationship between pedagogy and interaction…and (3) the linguistic forms and patterns of

interaction which the learners produce in the L2 are potentially subject to evaluation by the

teacher in some way” (Seedhouse 2004: 183-184).

For Seedhouse (2004), all 3 interactional properties are derived directly from the core

institutional goal, which is the pedagogical focus of the teachers’ lesson. These properties in

turn, form the interaction. Furthermore, Seedhouse (2004) claims that the linguistic form and

patterns of interaction which teachers and learners produce are linked in some way to the

pedagogical focus which is introduced.

Following Lin’s (1996) study on code-switching in Hong Kong classrooms, I would like to

expand the teacher-led sequential format of the IRE sequence for knowledge construction in

classrooms. The analysis of the bilingual interaction in classrooms in Dar es Salaam

revealed an expanded structure of this sequence. The structure can be formulated as

'L2InitiationL1Initiation-L1response-L1evaluationL2evaluation' (henceforth IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-

EL2)12. This structure can be seen as a direct outcome of the tension between the pressure

on teachers to adhere to the English-only policy and their efforts to respond to the

communicative needs of students. Seedhouse (2004) approaches code-switching in

classrooms mainly from a practical point of view. This means that interactional code-

switching patterns are bound to the institutional goal of transferring pedagogical knowledge.

This becomes particularly clear in his description of the relationship between code-switching,

repair, and the pedagogical focus of the teacher.

61

12See also appendix 1A lines 4-23; appendix 1B lines 111-117; appendix 1K lines 3-9.

Repair is initiated by participants on a moment to moment basis to maintain mutual

understandings of what they are doing together in their interactions. Van Lier (1988) and

Kasper (1986) introduced an approach to repair in bilingual classroom. According to Van Lier

(1988: 188-189) this type of classroom is typified by four basic kinds of repair: didactic repair,

conversational repair, conjunctive repair and disjunctive repair. Furthermore Van Lier (1988:

211) suggests that “we must bear in mind that certain types of activity naturally lead to certain

types of repair, and that therefore the issue of how to repair is closely related to the context

of what is being done”. Kasper (1986) differentiated the organization of ‘language centered’

repair from ‘content centered’ repair in bilingual classroom. Seedhouse (2004) adopts a

similar approach to repair organization in the second language classroom. He distinguishes

self-initiated repair (I prompt repair of my mistake) from other–initiated repair (somebody else

notices my mistake and prompts repair). He also distinguishes self-repair (I correct myself)

from other-repair (somebody corrects my mistake) (Seedhouse, 2004: 34). Seedhouse

(2004) further associates preference organization with the structure of repair in bilingual

classrooms, and argues there is a specific relationship between preference of repair, the

pedagogical goal and the choice for a certain language in the bilingual classroom. Take a

look at excerpt 4.

In excerpt 4, the pedagogical goal of the teacher (t) is helping students(s) understand that (1)

‘social cultural practices’ are practices that oppress women, and that (2) this oppression has

to be understood in the context of cultural traditions and not merely as repression exercised

by males.

Excerpt 4 (appendix 1A):

9. t: these are those euh different practices which oppress they’re results they’re euh just results of our euh

10. and traditions euh and cultural things that we do//

11. but which in one way or another they do oppress the position of what?

12. the position of? ((1,5) students don’t respond))

13. women//

14. they oppress// (2,5) they are oppressing the position of women// but we have to know we have to be so euh

15. euh aware in those social cultural practices/ they are just social practices/ which affect which oppress women/ not men//

16. oppress what? ((1,5) students don’t respond)

17. women//

18. tumeelewana? ((1,5) students don’t respond)

do we understand each other?

62

19. tunapozungunzia social cultural practices

when we talk about

20. ni ni inakuwa tu nie euh yaani mazoea ambayo (4)

they are just just practices that

21. au au mambo ambayo yanayomkandamiza?(0,5) [mwanamke]

or or things that oppress women things that oppress a woman

22. s: [mwanamke]

a woman

23. t: sio swala la wanaume kuwakandamiza? (0,5) [wanawake]//

but, it is not about man who oppress ((who?)) women

24. s: [wanawake]

women

25. t: is that clear? (0,5)

26. s: ((l) yes )

In lines 9 and 10, the teacher contextualizes his question (first pair part) asked in lines 11-12.

The answer (second pair part), however, does not follow until lines 22-23. The first pair part is

followed by an interval of 1.5 seconds. It seems that the teacher leaves a deliberate pause,

which opens a response slot awaiting the production of an answer. However, the production

of the second pair part by the students is not forthcoming. Hence, the teacher initiates a

repair procedure in line 13 and thereby produces the answer to his question himself. In lines

14-15, the repair procedure continues when the teacher reproduces the context in which his

original question (first pair part) is to be interpreted. He then repeats the first pair part in line

16. Again the teacher waits 1.5 seconds to give his students the chance to formulate an

answer (second pair part). The preferred action of the question/answer adjacency pair,

however, is also not answered. This also implies that the pedagogical goal – i.e. to elucidate

that social cultural practices oppressing women are ‘cultural’ and not ‘male’ practices – thus

far is not accomplished. Taking this into account, the teacher in line 17 reformulates the

answer (second pair part) to the question he previously posed in lines 11-12. In line 18, he

then switches to Kiswahili. The switch from L2 to L1 has to be seen in relation to the repair

procedure. The procedure the teacher initiates in the first part of this excerpt – i.e.

contextualizing and (re)formulating the question through the English medium (L2) – does not

contribute to achieving the pedagogical goals of the teacher. This claim is further

strengthened by the 1.5 seconds of silence following each question in lines 11-12 and 16.

Hence, to accomplish the pedagogical goal, the teacher initiates a new ‘design’ of repair

procedure in line 18 by code-switching to Kiswahili. Seedhouse (2004) denominated this as

63

the ‘pedagogical focus’ of code-switching. He thereby argues that code-switching can be

‘deployed’ to address procedural trouble and give L1 equivalents. The pedagogical focus of

the code-switch in line 18, then, is addressing the ‘lack of an answer’ or second pair part. In

the form of ‘tumeleewana’ (do we understand each other), the teacher -as it were- reposes

the original question: do the students understand that he’s talking about social cultural

practices being ‘cultural’ phenomena and affecting women? When the teacher after 1.5

seconds still does not receive any answer, he contextualizes his question in lines 19-20

again. This time the contextualization takes place in Kiswahili, as does the repeated question

posed in line 21. The subsequent pause is remarkably short. After 0.5 seconds, the preferred

action – i.e. a positive answer (second pair part) – is produced. Thereby, the first part of the

pedagogical goal is reached: students understand there are cultural practices affecting

women. In line 23, the teacher continues in Kiswahili. In the form of a question (first pair part)

he examines whether students also realize the practices are cultural and not simply male

practices. The answer (second pair part) is positive and follows after 0.5 seconds in line 24.

With this preferred action, students indicate their understanding and the second pedagogical

goal is reached. 0.5 seconds after the production of this preferred action, the teacher

switches back to English in line 25 asking whether everything is clear. Students respond 0.5

seconds later with an enthusiastic and clearly hearable ‘yes!’.

The above interaction analysis shows how a delay in the production of an answer brings the

teacher to change the ‘design’ of the repair procedure. While speaking English in the first part

of the excerpt, the repair procedure is characterized by 1.5 second intermissions upon which

the teacher formulates the answer to his own question. In the second part of the excerpt,

however, he switches to Kiswahili. By giving the repair procedure this new design, code-

switching triggers the preferred action and reaches the pedagogical goal. Thus, the

pedagogical focus of the switch is to elicit an answer from the students13. Preferred actions

(answers) follow 0.5 seconds after the teacher posed his question and the repair procedure

here can be defined in relation to the practice of code-switching. The teacher switch back to

English in line 25 after 0.5 seconds confirms this fact. Therefore, the unique fingerprint of

language use in this excerpt demonstrates that language is both the process and the product

of the instruction. The practice of repair in this excerpt can be classified under what is called

'structural repair', or rather the initiation of repair for the purpose of subject comprehension.

However, as we shall see later, repair can also be an ideological practice rather than merely

a structural one.

64

13Similar examples can be found in: appendix 1B lines 30-42 & 111-114; appendix 1C line 69-74 &

145-154; appendix 1D 76-87

3.5.3. Dimensions of legitimacy

The legitimacy of English in the classrooms can also be considered as a fingerprint of the

observed classroom interaction. Underlying the legitimacy of a languageare the ideologies

about the value of a certain language. In Tanzania, English is the legitimate language

because it is perceived to be the language of knowledge, of science and technology and of

modernity. Through implementing an English-in-education policy, this legitimacy is

(re)enforced which in turn (re)produces the hegemony of English in Tanzanian society. The

concept of 'legitimate language' was first introduced by Bourdieu (1977), who argues:

“[...] it is uttered by a legitimate speaker, i.e. by the appropriate person, as opposed to the

impostor (religious language/priest, poetry/ poet, etc.); it is uttered in a legitimate situation,

i.e. on the appropriate market (as opposed to insane discourse, e.g. a surrealist poem read

in the Stock Exchange) and addressed to legitimate receivers; it is formulated in the

legitimate phonological and syntactic forms (what linguists call grammaticalness), except

when transgressing these norms is part of the legitimate definition of the legitimate

producer” (Bourdieu, 1977: 650).

Legitimate language is defined by the different dimensions of legitimacy. From Bourdieu's

perspective, legitimate language includes legitimate speakers or legitimate interlocutors,

under certain social conditions, in a language that is tied to specific conventions (Heller,

1996: 140). Scholars, such as Heller (1996), Arthur (1996), Stroud (2002), and Unamuno

(2008), have enlarged Bourdieu's concept of legitimate language from formal aspects like

syntax and phonology to issues of language choice. Thus, the use of a specific legitimate

language is associated in the minds of people with power and authority, and with formal and

official activities. Generally, the language associated with the dominant elites of the state is

considered to be the most legitimate. Bourdieu (1977) says:

We learn that the efficacy of a discourse, its power to convince, depends on the authority of

the person who utters it, or what amounts to the same thing, on his ‘accent’ functioning as an

index of authority. (Bourdieu 1977: 653).

In Tanzania, English represents the language of power through which the elite differentiates

itself from the non-elite. In examining language use from a CA perspective, I will show how

legitimate language is constructed, negotiated and contested even though legitimate

language is not solely about 'language'. It is entangled in a complex web of different

dimensions of legitimacy, which includes speakers’ authority, legitimate knowledge, identities

65

and culture. The analysis reveals the relationship among these different dimensions.

Because they all interface with one another, one cannot merely discuss one aspect of

legitimacy without taking into account the involvement of -or implications for- other aspects of

legitimacy. Therefore, it might be argued that, in certain excerpts, other dimensions of

legitimacy that I do not discuss are also relevant and have to be taken into consideration.

However, to bring 'order in the chaos', I will nevertheless try to discuss and highlight different

dimensions of legitimacy in different sections of the dissertation. While the first sections

mainly focus on language legitimacy and legitimate knowledge, the later sections mainly

focus on legitimate speakers, authority, identities and culture.

4. Micro-politics: constructing and negotiating (language) legitimacy

4.1. Indexing legitimacy through frame shifts

In what follows, I draw on Goffman’s (1974) notion of ‘frame’ to distinguish interactional

activities in which the construction, negotiation, or contestation of legitimacy is displayed in

the classrooms at issue. A frame is a way of organizing experiences: it is one of the means

whereby people identify the kind of activity that is taking place. For example, the act of

embracing someone may be understood as an indication of support, a way of accepting an

apology, or a gesture of romantic affection. Goffman’s analysis of frames demonstrates how

people distinguish these kinds of activities. He defined this analysis as “the study of the

organizat ion of experiences, each frame of which is a pr inciple of that

organization” (Goffman, 1974:11). In my analysis, official classroom discourse is associated

with what can be called the ‘pedagogical frame’. It is important to note that even within the

pedagogical frame, other frames are created through interaction. However, all frames within

the pedagogical frame share a similar focus. This fundamental focus of the pedagogical

frame is making the learners understand and transmit the subject material that is being

taught. This implies the interactional activity is related to the curriculum and by consequence

the prescription of using English as a medium of instruction. However, as stated earlier, such

a monolingual English-only policy is impossible to enforce and code-switching between

English and Kiswahili occurs even within the pedagogical frame. The reasons for this are

dual. Teachers are operating under conditions of tension between institutional pressures to

adhere to language policy – i.e. the exclusive use of English in the classroom – on the one

hand, but they also have the intuition to code-switch in response to the communicative needs

of their students.

66

However, on several occasions in a number of different lessons, participants' code-switching

did not occur within the pedagogical frame. Moreover, the code-switching indexed a shift

away from the pedagogical frame. Excerpt 5 exemplifies this by providing basic evidence of

the construction of the legitimacy of English within the official classroom discourse. During a

history-lesson, the teacher unexpectedly switches to Kiswahili to deal with a tardy student:

Excerpt 5 (appendix 1D)

60. t: i suppose you know that we moved our capital from dar es salaam and we have moved

61. where? (0.5)

62. s: ((mumbling)) dodoma//

63. t: ((looking at s1 who comes in late ) wewe kaa huko huko nimashakuchoka / every day you are late

you better stay out i had enough of you

64. ((s1 looks surprised))

65. s1: not every day

66. t: mm sitaki mabishano nenda ukakae kwenye shedi huko. umezoea.

mm i don’t want argument go stay in the shadow. you are making it a habit

67. ((s1 moves towards teacher))

68. t: unanifuata wala sitaki every day you are late, why?

are you following me i don’t want

69. wote we are finishing things hakuna anaekaja kwa ndege wala helkopta

all of us no one came by airplane or helicopter

70. mimi nakuja kwa basi tena natoka bunju tena mzee

i come by bus besides i come from bunju besides i’m old

71. basi nikichelewa hata wewe utasema mwalimu kachelewa baada?

and if i’m late even you you will later/afterwards say the teacher is

72. s0: baadaye/

late

73. t: ok so euhm that is what we did now tell me why would you think it is a positive direction someone

74. to move out his own country to another country and establish is euh a capital there

As can be seen from line 60 to 62 of the transcription, teachers and students are conducting

their lesson in English, when, at a certain moment (in line 63) a student (s1) who is late

enters the classroom. The teacher immediately addresses the student in Kiswahili. With this

switch, she is signalling a suspension of the definition of the situation as an English-medium

history lesson and hence the pedagogical frame where the main concern is transmitting the

67

subject material to the students. The teacher could have signalled this frame shift by using

other contextualisation cues; such as raising her voice or body-language. However, by using

Kiswahili she is conveying an implicit message to the tardy student (s1): she is so fed up with

the students' tardiness that she has to make a radical break with the practice of teaching a

lesson, including that of teaching it in English. Her major concern now is making sure s9 is

disciplined so she can go on with her lesson of the day. In line 74 the teacher shifts back to

the pedagogical frame by switching to English again. Notice also the intra-sentential switches

in lines 63 and 68 where the teacher says 'everyday you are late'. In making these switches,

she seems to be emphasizing the fact that, the classroom is a place where teaching should

be the main concern, and speaking English and being on time are school policies that should

be followed. The break in the English pedagogic frame to highlight this urgent set of concerns

and transfer these implicit messages could not have been achieved without the teacher’s

switch from English to Kiswahili.

Excerpt 5 can be denoted as an example of what Blom and Gumperz (1972) have called

situational code-switching, or a change in linguistic form that is triggered by a changed social

setting. Hence, in excerpt 5, the teacher's switch to Kiswahili indexed a frame shift away from

the pedagogical frame as a result of a change in the social situation14. In many cases,

however, there was no change in the social situation and code-switching indexed a shift of

topic away from the pedagogical frame. This is what Blom and Gumperz (1972) have termed

'metaphorical switching'15. This is illustrated in excerpt 6:


137. t: ((points to adrawing on the blackboard) this is clito clitoris and the the la la labia labia majora and euh labia)

138. hee kwenye biology?

haven’t you read this in biology?

139 s: = ((laughter) ndiyo/ hapana

yes / no

140. t: hamjamsoma?

haven’t you read it?

141. s0: =eehe/ hatujajifunza (5)

we haven’t done it

68

14Similar examples can be found in appendix: 1C lines 25-39, 217-219; 1D line 156-161; 1F lines 55-

58, 1G lines 73-78

15Similar examples can be found in appendix: 1A lines 40-44, 198-202, 213-218; 1B lines 203-205, 1G

lines 27-31; 1L lines 156-165

142. t: yes// o of course/ euh what we want to discuss here is euh that fe female genital mutilation//

143. now/ euh different societies (2) of course this one (goes back to his drawing) is practised in different societies//

In line 137 of the excerpt, the teacher (t) is describing the parts of the female reproductive

organ in the context of his class on female genital mutilation. In line 138, he switches to

Kiswahili to ask the students if they had already studied this in biology. In doing so he

indexes a shift away from the pedagogical frame where the topic is female genital mutilation.

The switch to English in line 142 marks a shift back to this pedagogical frame.

Excerpt 5 and 6 shed light to the construction of English as the legitimate language through

which educational-knowledge is transmitted. In both excerpts, the use of Kiswahili occurred

in - or indexed - a suspension of the pedagogical frame of the lesson. Once one switched

back to English the lessons continued and the process of transferring knowledge continued.

4.2. Legitimate (language) knowledge and the pedagogical frame

In the following section, it will be shown that a sequential analysis of the interactional

patterns within the pedagogical frame, reveal how specific interactional patterns are used to

construct, negotiate, and contest different dimensions of (language) legitimacy. The focus of

this section will primarily be on the construction of legitimate (English) knowledge through

code-switching in specific interactional practices and structures.

4.2.1. Sequential organization

As discussed earlier, the typical sequential format for knowledge construction in monolingual

classrooms is a teacher-led IRE sequence. The analysis of the bilingual interaction in

classrooms in Dar es Salaam revealed an expanded structure of this sequence: IL2-IL1-RL1-

EL1-EL2). This structure can be seen as a the result of the tension between the pressure on

teachers to follow the English-only policy and their efforts to respond to the communicative

needs of students. As excerpt 7 demonstrates, the 'IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-EL2' structure has

important consequences for the construction of legitimate language and knowledge. The

excerpt was recorded during a Form 1 history class on the Oman Arabs.

69

Excerpt 7 (appendix 1D):

93. t: all right/ the geographical position of of zanzibar (0.5) zanzibar is an island.(0.5)zanzibar is an island/

94. and if you i mean you can i mean you can get protection? especially from rivals

95. for example if they they were any enemies/

96. from the mainland/ then you can easily see euhm people coming and he will know if they are good friends/

97. or they are enemies from what you can see from the boats or from the ships and so on//

98. if they are war ships or if they are ships coming from trade and so on.

99. kwa hiyo aah kwamba kisiwa kile kilitoa ulinzi zaidi kwamba hawezi kushambuliwa kwa urahisi,

therefore, that highland offered extra protection that he can’t be invaded easily

100. anaweza akaona au akahisi kwamba kuna adui ambao, wanafanyage?(1) wanakuja.

he is able to see or guess that there are enemies who are doing what? They're coming

101. wanafayage? (0,5)

who are doing what?

102. s: wanakuja/

they're coming

103. t: huwezi kwingia pale bila kuoneekana.

you can’t enter there without being seen. (0.5)

104. ok/ any other reasons which you think might have made seyyid said to move his capital?

Excerpt 7 is a typical example - both in sequential organization and in discourse function - of

the many code-switching practices that occurred during my observations. The teacher

initiates class in English, explaining why Seyyid Said moved his capital from Muscat to

Zanzibar. In line 99, she switches to Kiswahili and reformulates her explanation previously

given in English, but no additional information is provided16. This is what is Gumperz (1982)

has termed a ‘reiteration’, or what Auer (1984) calls a ‘pseudo-translation’. After the

reiteration, the students answer in Kiswahili in line 102. Following this, the teacher evaluates

their answer, first in Kiswahili in line 103 and then in English in line 104. This particular

sequence was common, and facilitated students’ accessibility to the content of the lesson.

The switch is participant-related and hearer-orientated because it takes into account

participants’ language competence. However, it is also an example of discourse-related

switching because it is a speaker-orientated strategy for conveying meaning and articulating

the message across the classroom. The discourse format, 'IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-EL2, reflects the

70

16Similar examples can be found in appendix: 1A lines 14-24 & 127-180; 1B lines 30-39 & 170-169; 1C

lines 3-5 & 48-54 & 59-64 & 71-73 & 97-105; 1D lines 20-24 & 25-30 & 40-43 & 196-197; 1L lines

133-136.

teacher’s attempt to elicit and value contributions from the students in the process of

knowledge construction. The teacher uses this particular discourse format to elicit, transform,

and incorporate students' otherwise illegitimate Ll contributions into the official L2 knowledge

discourse. This reflects the teacher’s pragmatic response to the tension of trying to ensure

the student's historical comprehension while also fulfilling the curriculum requirement of

building (English) academic knowledge. Thus, the main aim of the switch in this situation is

transmitting knowledge. By taking a closer look at how this knowledge is constructed and

transmitted in interaction, the following examples will reveal how English legitimacy is called

into being through the construction of knowledge in interaction. Excerpt 8 was recorded in a

class at the sampled private primary school.

Excerpt 8 (appendix 1G)

34. t: atmosphere is air condition xxx

35. for example/ when the smoke were coming then it is the pollution of the air

36. atmosphere/ ok?

37. =ni hali ya hewa

it is the condition of air.

In excerpt 8, the teacher introduces the topic in English (34-36) and then switches to

Kiswahili to provide a translation for the preceding English topic (37). This is an example of

literal translations juxtaposed and, as in excerpt 7, no extra information is added. However,

by providing a Kiswahili translation, the teacher does establish what Lin (1996) calls

‘academic bilingualism’17. Even though no additional information on the topic is added,

students are provided with the Kiswahili equivalent for the English term of ‘atmosphere’. This

has the cognitive advantage of facilitating students’ understanding and learning of the topic at

issue. Furthermore, it sends the message that there exists a corresponding body of

academic knowledge in Kiswahili, and that students may be expected to know the term in

both languages. Hence, both languages seem to be treated equally in that the academic

bilingualism constructed does not value one language over another. However, in contrast to

the English term, the teacher does not write the Kiswahili equivalent for the students on the

blackboard. Hence, even though the actual switch may be interpreted as the teachers

resistance to the English-only prescription, the fact that only the English term is written down

may index the teachers’ submission to the language hierarchy. Furthermore, the code-

71

17Similar examples can be found in appendix: 1A lines 111-112 & 150-163; 1B lines 190-194; 1K lines

1-8.

switching sequence observed within the pedagogic frame appeared in an overall L2-L1

format which reflects the second class status of Kiswahili in relation to English. The L2-L1

format frequently occurred when teachers were engaged in a monologue, and no immediate

participation from the students was requested (in contrast with an 'IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-EL2'

format). Excerpt 9a is also characterized by this sequential format. However, in contrast to

excerpt 8, the teacher in excerpt 9a makes an appeal to code-switching as a means of

including additional information on the classroom topic18. During this particular excerpt, the

same teacher from excerpt 8 claims that the East African Community (EAC) only consists of

three countries, and that Rwanda and Burundi are not (yet) part of the community.

Excerpt 9a (appendix 1H):

12. t: in east africa we have only three countries

13. rwanda and burundi are not yet//

14. ok? so it is not ready//

15. bado hawajakubaliwa kuwa jumuiya ya africa mashariki

still they are not approve/agreed to be part of east africa community

16. lakini wanaomba na wao wawemo lakini bado hawajakubalika”

but they are still asking to join but still not approved/agreed

17. kwa hiyo kwenye notisi zenu na mitihani ziko nchi 3 tu. ok?

therefore in your notes and exams there are 3 countries only

18. wanataka wajiunge na shirikisho but they are not yet in shirikisho

they want to join the union but they are not yet in union

19. they are not yet in the community ok?

The discourse in excerpt 9a unfolds in an L2-L1-L2 sequence. Beginning in English, the

teacher draws attention to the fact that there are only three countries in the East-African

Community, but that EAC does not (yet) include Rwanda and Burundi. In line 15, she

switches to Kiswahili and explains that there is a request from Rwanda and Burundi to join

the community, but that this request is yet to be approved. Interestingly, in line 17, she

argues that the only thing that needs to be written down in students’ notes, and the only thing

that counts as knowledge for the exam, is that there are only three countries in the EAC.

Therefore what is being said in Kiswahili – i.e. that there is a request that has not yet been

approved- is considered to be some sort of annotation of what was previously said in

72

18Similar examples can be found in appendix: 1A lines 90-94 & 196-217; 1B lines 89-89 & 111-116 &

195-202; 1C lines 144-154 & 216-219.

English. The switch, then, from English to Kiswahili in lines 16 to 18 serves first to introduce

corresponding knowledge in Kiswahili, and then to clarify the status of this newly introduced

knowledge. It also conveys a message that what is taught in Kiswahili cannot be defined as

legitimate knowledge (line 17). In line 19, the teacher switches back to English and

reformulates her initial claim made before the switch to Kiswahili in line 15: Rwanda and

Burundi are not part of the East-African Community. Hence, the switch back to English (line

19) is in fact a switch back to what is regarded as knowledge required for examinations. In

doing so, the teacher stays loyal to the monolingual English objectives of the curriculum

because legitimate knowledge is provided through the English medium. Further evidence for

this interpretation comes from the intra-sentential switch in line 18. Lin (1996) introduced the

notion of ‘English-dominant-academic-bilingualism’ to describe code-switching activities such

as this one. He argues that ‘English-dominant-academic-bilingualism’ is the result of

teacher’s resistance to, and cooperation with, the prescribed English-only objectives. (Lin,

1996: 69). Lin (1996) further claims that the use of this type of bilingualism is concerned with

establishing English-academic-knowledge. This, of course, is further reinforced by English as

the medium of all textbooks and written work in the sampled schools. For example, in excerpt

9b, a student confronts the teacher with the fact that Rwanda and Burundi had in reality

already officially joined the East African Community19. Consequently, the student further asks

why they can only write down 3 countries on the exam, when there are actually 5 countries in

the East African Community. The teacher answered as followed:

Excerpt 9b (appendix 1H):

26. s4: ((l) i don’t understand they asked the east africa community then someone asks the 3 countries then it is 5 now) (0.5)

27. t: that is not very official/

28. =for example? the syllabus we are following and the book we are following we just tell you what in the book/

29. those things can be written in the magazine computers or whatever wherever/

30. =but according to what we teach? we just follow what is in this book and this book is signed by the

31. government people/

32. So we can’t add more the things that are not here//

In excerpt 9b, the teacher responds to the student’s question by stating that; even if the East

African Community would comprise 5 countries, this knowledge would not be part of the

73

19Rwanda and Burundi officially became full members of the East African Community June 18th 2007,

with effect from July 1st 2007.

legitimate knowledge to be included on the exam. The reason for this is that the information

is not written in the current official textbooks provided by the government. Hence, what is not

written in the English textbooks seems to be compatible to what was said in Kiswahili in

excerpt 9a, and thus is presumed to be illegitimate knowledge. Therefore, despite the

teacher’s effort to introduce – albeit incorrectly – English subject matter along with extra

information provided in Kiswahili, the effect is still one of English-academic-knowledge.

The construction of ‘English-academic-knowledge’ is further elaborated in excerpt 10. The

excerpt is derived from an economic lesson in a Form 6 class in Zanaki Secondary School,

where the teacher explains the difference between the notions ‘economic integration’ and

‘economic cooperation’. In contrast to what was previously observed, the use of Kiswahili in

this excerpt serves, at first sight, not merely as a means of annotating what is produced in

English. In my video-recordings of this lesson, I found no explanation of the difference

between the two notions at issue, other than the explanation given below in excerpt 10.

Excerpt 10 (appendix1B):

195. t: sovereign states establisht its cooperation/

196. kwa hiyo tukiangalia economic integration inaweza ikatofautishwa na economic cooperation

therefore, if we look at it can be distinguished from

197. zile nchi ambazo ni huru

those countries that are independent

198. lakini ukiangalia economic integration

but if you look at

199. lazima zile nchi ziwe na mahusiano katika maswala ya kiuchumi na zinataka kupata nini

those countries must have relations in economic issues and establish what they want to gain

In this excerpt, most of the speech is conducted through the Kiswahili medium. Kiswahili is

used to explain the difference between ‘economic integration’ and ‘economic cooperation’,

and, at no other time during the lesson did English serve the same means. Hence, one could

argue, Kiswahili operates here as the language through which legitimate academic

knowledge is established and transferred, since it is the sole medium throughout which the

difference at issue is explained. However, during her discourse, the teacher does make a

small number of intra-sentential switches to English. The key-notions of ‘economic

integration’ and ‘economic cooperation’ appear exclusively in English. This indicates that the

teacher is mindful of the official English-medium-policy, in which a principal concern is to

establish English-academic-knowledge. In other words, by using only English key-notions,

74

the teacher not only underlines that she is operating within a frame of ‘doing an economic-

lesson in English’, she is also making sure the newly introduced notions are transferred in

the form of English-academic-knowledge20.

4.2.2. Structural versus ideological repair

The legitimacy of English and English academic knowledge can further be elaborated with an

analysis of repair practices. As showed in excerpt 4, code-switching can occur in structural

repairs as an assistance strategy utilized by teachers for the purpose of subject

comprehension. Razfar (2005) however notes that, in some cases, the practice of repair also

indexes language ideologies, thus making it an ideological practice rather than merely a

structural practice. This is especially true in L2 classrooms, where different languages are

associated with variable histories of status, legitimacy, authority, and power. Following Street

(1993), Razfar’s (2005) study is premised on the assumption that all language practices are

fundamentally ideological, because they are socially constituted in the interests and values of

people. One way of examining these assumptions is through analyzing repair practices in

classroom discourse. The reason for this is that repair is one of the many discourse practices

present in L2 classrooms which is inherently framed by teacher-student, cultural, linguistic,

and historical hierarchies (Razfar, 2005: 405). Following Razfar (2005) I will illustrate that;

“[…]Because the practice of repair is always predicated on situated notions of ‘correctness’

and speakers presume a minimal degree of linguistic right and authority to perform it; the act

of correcting linguistic form or usage is fundamentally ideological and a valuable arena for

understanding language ideologies in practice” (Razfar, 2005: 405).

In excerpt 4, repair was initiated by the teacher after long pauses indicated the failure to

produce a second pair part, and thus indexed a lack of comprehension on the part of the

students. In some cases during my observations, however, a repair sequence was initiated

even when the participants clearly did understand what was being communicated. Here,

repair was not a matter of comprehending what was being communicated, but what seemed

to be unacceptable and a reason for repair was the form in which it was communicated. As

Razfar (2005) observed, it is within this sphere that the ideological character of repair

becomes more visible. Indeed, the examples that follow illustrate repair practices which are

not about basic comprehension but rather about language ideology and legitimacy. In other

75

20Similar examples can be found in appendix: 1A lines 19 & 90 & 166 & 169 & 180.

words, the repairs were not necessary for comprehension proposes. They index ideologies

about which linguistic forms are acceptable for the construction of knowledge and hence

what type of knowledge is constructed. In excerpt 11, the students were asked to name an

African country.

Excerpt 11 (appendix1G):

18. s8: somalia

19. s9: msumbiji

mozambique

20. s0: [=((l)mozambique)]

21. t: [=msumbiji is not english its’s kiswahili]

22. s10: kenya

When naming African countries, the student (s9) in line 19 names ‘Msumbiji’, or rather, the

Kiswahili word for Mozambique. Immediately, forms of other-repair are simultaneously

initiated by a fellow student (s0) and by the teacher (t). S0 shouts the English word for

‘Msumbiji. Since the latter produces the correct translation he indicates that he understands

what s9 says, but that he does not agree with the linguistic form in which the name of the

country was produced. Likewise, the teacher says ‘Msumbiji is not English, 'it’s Kiswahili’.

She too comprehended what s9 meant with ‘Msumbiji’, as she does not indicate that s9 is

wrong and that Msumbiji is not an African country. She does not correct what s9 said, but

how he said it. Repair of language use seems to suggest the prevalence of a language

ideology that emphasizes the linguistic form, rather than communicative competence and

meaning. The production of a Kiswahili word instead of an English one can be related to the

communicative competence of s9. However, the practice of repair of ‘incorrect’ language by

s0 and t is still predicated on a notion of ‘correctness’ that is rooted in a presumed criterion of

‘correctness’ that participants orient to within a particular discourse frame (Razfar, 2005:

412). In this particular frame, correctness is based on the criterion of ‘speaking English’. The

claim for English as the 'correct linguistic form' hence indexes the linguistic hierarchy in the

bilingual classroom, and by consequence the ideological value that is associated with

English. The unacceptability of the Kiswahili form is further demonstrated through both

initiations of repair being latched to s9s' utterance and being produced in remarkably loud

voices. Although the production of a 'Kiswahili linguistic form' clearly contested the legitimacy

of English, and by extension English-academic-knowledge, the practice of repair ensured this

legitimacy was perpetuated. However, in other ideological-repair-practices of 'incorrect

76

linguistic forms', it did not always have the same outcome of maintaining the legitimacy of

English. The following discourse segment further illustrates this statement:

Excerpt 12a (appendix 1F):

4. t: which country is surrounded by only one country? and why south africa fought apartheid?

5. s1: they fought because lo:ng time ago when euh euh (1) wazungu

white people/europeans

6. t: =((l)white people)

7. s1: ((looks at t )wazungu? they co:me here in africa they started treating us badly/)

In excerpt 12a, student 1 (s1) is explaining why South Africans fought against apartheid. In

line 5, he begins in English. At a certain point during this turn, s1 begins having doubts about

what to say next or how he will say it. This is indexed by the repeated use of the word 'euh',

which is followed by a short pause of 1 second. After this, s1 makes an intra-sentential switch

and produces the Kiswahili word for 'white people' or 'Europeans': 'wazungu'. The teacher

does not approve this linguistic form as she immediately 'corrects' it by producing the English

equivalent for 'wazungu'. Marking her negative stance towards the 'incorrect' utterance, t

says 'white people' in a loud voice. However, s1 does not accept the ideological repair

initiated by t. Instead of repeating the 'correct' linguistic form in line 7, he reproduces the

word 'wazungu' and thus opts for his initial language choice. The reproduction of 'wazungu' is

accompanied by a challenging look at t. Furthermore, the rising intonation marks a mock

tone which indexes the awareness of the 'incorrectness’ of the word 'wazungu'. Hence, s1 is

deliberately being uncooperative, rejects the ideological repair and thus contests the

legitimacy of English. In line 8, a similar incident between the same participants occurs:

Excerpt 12b (appendix 1F):

8. s1: then they if you do the work they doesn’t give you money, or they give you only small food in (1)kiba:kuli

bowl

9. t: ((loud) bowl)

10. s1: If they give you that tomorrow you don’t have the food so you going to work in the farm//

Preceded by a pause, s1 makes an intra-sentential switch from English to Kiswahili in line 8.

As in excerpt 12a, the pause can be interpreted as indexing a period of negotiating on which

available linguistic form the student will apply. S1 produces the word 'kibakuli', which is again

immediately contested by t. In line 9, t initiates a form of ideological repair by producing the

'correct' linguistic form for 'bowl'. This time, s9 chooses not to publicly reject the repair. He

77

does not repeat his initial linguistic form as he did in the previous excerpt, but instead

completely ignores t's effort to 'correct' him. By ignoring this ideological repair it is not quite

clear whether or not he accepts making a 'mistake' by producing a Kiswahili word. Based on

his previously observed behavior, one might assume that the ignorance is a silent

demonstration of rejection. Sometimes, as can be observed in the following excerpt,

participants do openly accept ideological repair.

Excerpt 13 (appendix 1B):

180. t: east african community cooperate in trade/ mm:?

181. ((looks at s7, who raises her hand ,and nods yes))]

182. s7: viwanja ((S)vya ndege)

infrastructures of airport

183. t: ((nods no) what?(1))

184. s7: infrastructures?

185. t: ((nods yes) infrastructure/)

In excerpt 13, the teacher wants the students to show what the different areas of cooperation

are between the countries of the East African Community. In line 181, a student (s7) raises

her hand to answer the question. The teacher indexes approval of this request by looking at

the student and nodding yes. Following this, s7 in line 182 says 'viwanja vya ndege' which is

Kiswahili for 'airport infrastructures'. In line 183, however, t signals a problem with this

answer. She nods no and produces the question 'what?'. By nodding no, we know she has

understood the content of s7's answer but she doesn't seem to agree with the 'correctness'

of this answer. However, it is not clear whether the incorrectness lies in what was being

answered or in how it was answered. In line 184, s7 initiates self-repair. She opts to initiate a

form of ideological repair by giving the same answer she gave in line 182, but now producing

it under the linguistic form of the English word 'infrastructures'. This word is accompanied by

a rising pitch, which signals s7's insecurity over whether she has initiated the right kind of

repair. After all, she might as well have initiated a form of structural repair where she would

have produced a new linguistic form with a new meaning. However, the practice of

ideological repair seems to be accepted by the teacher who nods yes and repeats the

'correct' answer in line 185.

In the aforementioned examples, the production of 'Kiswahili linguistic forms' was contested

and, thus, became the objects of repair. However, ideological repair practices do not always

entail repair of 'Kiswahili linguistic forms'. In many cases observed, 'incorrect English forms'

78

became objects of repair. As Razfar (2005) points out, this particular practice of repair is one

of the most salient markers of language ideologies in EFLT settings. This is because correct

pronunciation raises fundamentally ideological questions on whether there is a correct

standard of language use and whose standard is the correct one? Wolfenstein (1993) says:

“[…]Languages have skin colors. There are white nouns and verbs, white grammar and white

syntax. In the absence of challenges to linguistic hegemony, indeed language is white. If you

don't speak white you will not be heard, just as when you don't look white you will not be

seen” (Wolfenstein cited in Razfar,.2005: 411).

Although Wolfenstein (1993) is referring to particular discourses related to acting/speaking

'white' in a broader context of power relations in the United States, the same idea can be

applied to EFLT classroom interaction. Excerpt 14 illustrates this:

Excerpt 14 (appendix 1I):

26. s1: ((l) when you take drugs/ it is not righti)

27. t: ((l)=it is not?) (0.5)

28. s1: it is not righti

29. t: ((l)=not righti, you have to pronounce it right//)

30. s1: when you take drugs it is not right//

The excerpt derives from a class discussion on drugs in Hekima Waldorf School. In line 26,

student 1 (s1) produces the sentence 'it is not righti'. The teacher (t) initiates repair in line 27.

Indexing that she does not agree with the last word of s1's utterance, she repeats part of his

sentence but leaves out s1's last word 'righti'. The rising intonation signals her desire for s1

to initiate self-repair. One could also argue t initiated repair not because of her disagreeing

with what was being said, but simply because she had not properly heard s1's last word.

However, s1 produced his sentence markedly loud and emphasized the word 'righti'.

Therefore, it seems most likely that t did hear and understand s1, but did not agree with the

design of s1's formulation. This assumption is verified by the following sequences. In line 28,

s1 reproduces his initial sentence as produced in line 1: 'it is not righti'. Hereafter, t initiates a

form of ideological other-repair. She states that 'righti' is not the correct pronunciation and it

should be pronounced as 'right' (line 29). What appears are ideologies underlying so called

'standard languages', in particular the 'standard English ideology' (SEI). Milroy (1999: 174)

argues that the key characteristic of SEI is “the belief that there is one and only one correct

spoken form of the language, modeled on a single correct written form”. Bokamba (1992)

discusses the notion of 'Standard English' in African contexts. He claims that the contact

79

between English and African languages has given rise to a number of varieties of English.

These varieties are characterized by certain properties that can be identified as 'Africanisms'.

Africanisms are phonological, semantical, morphological and syntactical properties in forms

of English that reflect structural characteristics of African languages (Bokamba, 1992: 126).

Schmied (1991: 427) points out that one of the Africanisms for many Bantu languages,

including Kiswahili, is adding a final -i to words ending in alveolar or palatal consonants. This

was clearly the case in excerpt 14, where s1 added a final -i to the word 'right'. Even though

this kind of Africanism occurs very often when Kiswahili speakers speak English, the teacher

in excerpt 14 did not recognize 'righti' as a 'correct' linguistic form of English.

Milroy (2001: 530) introduced the notion of 'standard language culture', which refers to the

shared belief of speakers that languages exist in standardized forms. In turn, this belief

influences their thinking about their own language and 'language' in general. For Milroy, one

of the most significant consequences of 'standardizing' languages has been the development

of a consciousness among speakers that there exists a 'correct' or canonical form of

language (Milroy, 2001: 535). All members of a 'standard language culture' have inherited the

ideology of standard language, and one aspect of this ideology is 'the belief of correctness'.

This implies that, when there are multiple variants of some word construction, only one of

them can be right (Milroy, 2001: 535). As the following excerpt illustrates, virtually everyone

agrees on the correctness or incorrectness of a linguistic form:

Excerpt 15 (appendix 1E):

1. t: if esther get's the fifty thousand shillings/ what is she going to do with the money? (1)

2. s1: [((raises her hand))]

3. t: ((looks at s1) yes editha?)

4. s1: if esther get fifty thousand

5. t: ((interrupts)) ((nods no) = ah ah ah )say it again? [if?]

6. s1: =[if]

7. =esther

8. t: mhm?

9. s1: get (1.5)

10. t: ((looks at s1) if esther?

11. s1: =get fifty thousand shilling/ she will take ten percent of the money to the church and keep the rest//

12. t: ((looks at the class) is she correct? (0.5)

13. s-: ((s) no)

14. t: no? how? ((starts writing on the blackboard)) what is the sentence?how is the sentence suppose to be?

80

15. ((looks at the class)= if esther?)

16. s- =((mumble))

17. t: =ha?

18. s+ ((in chorus)) ((l)gets)

19. t: ((writes the sentence on the blackboard) gets/ very good)

As can be seen in line 5, s1's utterance 'esther get' (line 4) is contested by the teacher who

signals a request for self-repair on the part of s1. However, as shown in lines 9 and 11, s1

does not change her initial utterance and repeatedly says 'get'. In line 12, the teacher turns to

the class and asks if s1 is correct when saying 'esther get'. A few students silently answer 'no'

in line 13. In line 14, the teacher confirms the incorrectness of s1 and asks how the sentence

'esther get' is suppose to be. Multiple students loudly respond in line 18. The ‘correct’

sentence is 'esther gets' and not 'esther get'. In line 19, the students' other- repair is

accepted and the 'correct' construction of the sentence is written down on the blackboard. As

we can see in the excerpt, no justification is given for rejecting the construction 'esther get'.

But, even if justification were given (i.e that the simple present of the third person is: verb+s),

this would merely be an intra-linguistic rationalization (see Milroy, 2001) and would not

provide a real reason why the form 'esther get' is 'incorrect'. The real reason can be found in

the nature of all language ideologies, namely that a linguistic form or construction is right or

wrong because that is simply 'common sense'. Further evidence of this can be found in the

fact that multiple students in line 18 simultaneously provide the 'correct' form. They all find it

obvious that 'esther get' is wrong and of course 'esther gets' is right. This is why the repair of

'esther get' is not about language structure, but about language ideology.

Standard languages have become legitimatized through long traditions of writing dictionaries,

grammars, and histories of languages. Standard English is a legitimate language that serves

literary functions, is believed to be 'educated' or 'sophisticated', and comes with certain

prestige (Milroy, 2001: 545). Varieties like 'Africanized Englishes' have not been legitimatized

because their internal structure deviates from the ‘right’ structure of the language. In the

words of Milroy (2001: 539), grammars and dictionaries are authoritative accounts of the

'language'”. In the aforementioned examples, 'esther get' and 'righti' were marked as

'ungrammatical' even though such constructions frequently occur in 'Tanzanian English'. This

implies that, regardless of how frequent certain constructions are used, they are only

'grammatical' if they coincide with the formal, literary Standard English form. The outcome is

that - through the establishment of the idea of a standard variety, the diffusion of knowledge

of this variety, its codification in grammar books and dictionaries, and its use in education

81

textbooks - all other varieties are devaluated. The standard becomes the legitimate form and

other forms are perceived to be illegitimate. It is useful at this point of the discussion to turn

back to the macro-level of the issue. In Tanzania, it is not just proficiency in any variety of

English which leads to upward mobility, it is not just 'English' which is 'responsible' for the

unequal distribution of capital. What is a key element for gaining capital and status is

proficiency in the highest valued variant of English, i.e. Standard English. It is this variant

which is inextricably linked to knowledge and education, upward mobility and thus creates

exclusion (see Blommaert 1999). On the semi-macro level, private schools (claim to) offer

education through/to 'higher' English and are therefore believed to provide quality education.

Through analyzing repair from an ideological point of view, one can see how the legitimacy of

English, English-academic-knowledge, and Standard English is established and negotiated.

Furthermore, it provides interesting information of how macro-level linguistic behavior

constantly interacts with semi-macro and macro-dynamics. The repairs were not necessary

to comprehension and indexed ideologies about which linguistic forms are acceptable for the

construction of knowledge and thus what type of knowledge is expected to be constructed.

This section mainly focused on the construction of legitimate (English) knowledge through

specific interactional practices and structures. In most cases, the teacher had the authority to

decide what language should be used, how it should be used, and what type of knowledge

should be constructed and transferred. However, as I will show in the following section,

authority is not a static entity. Like all aspects of legitimacy, authority can be challenged and

changed in and through interaction.

4.3. Language legitimacy, authority, identity and culture

4.3.1. Participation and authority

Bourdieu argues that;

“[...] linguistic relations are always relations of power and...cannot be elucidated within the

compass of linguistic analysis alone. Even the simplest linguistic exchange brings into play a

complex and ramifying web of historical power relations between the speaker, endowed with

a specific social authority, and an audience, which recognizes this authority to varying

degrees, as well as between groups to which they respectively belong” (cited in Jenkins,

1992: 154).

82

The functioning of this linguistic field is clearly reproduced in classrooms, where teachers

have the power and authority to approve or disapprove what students say, when they say it,

and especially how they say it. Bourdieu argues that the utterances produced by teachers

are not only “signs to be understood and deciphered, they are also signs of wealth intended

to be evaluated and appreciated, and signs of authority, intended to be believed and

obeyed” (Bourdieu, 1991: 66). The relationship between the authority of the teacher and the

legitimacy of English is exemplified in excerpt 16:

Excerpt 16 (appendix 1G)

65. s1: ((to jeffrey/s2) toka)

go away

66. jeffrey naomba peni

jeffrey can i borrow/have a pen?

67. s2: unaenda kumwomba peni?

are you going to ask/borrow a pen?

68. t: ((while throwing a pen at s2) (l)= in english)69. s1: ((to t) jeffery is a stealer)

The excerpt was recorded in the Hekima Waldorf School when two class 6 pupils, s1 and s2,

were fighting over a pen. As can be seen in line 65 and 66, the argument occurs through

Kiswahili. In line 68, the teacher 'reminds' them to speak English. Following this, s1 continues

in English. Not only does this tell us that the teacher has the authority to decide what

language is used, but it also tells us what language should be used when addressing the

teacher. The switch to English in line 69 is accompanied by a switch in 'ratified primary

recipient'. Initially s2 was the 'ratified primary recipient' of s1's utterance. In line 69, however,

s2 indexes a shift of 'ratified primary recipient' by moving his eye gaze and, more importantly,

by using English. One of the contributions of conversation analysis is the ascertainment that

“speakers design their speech according to whom their recipient is” (Duranti, 1997: 299). In

all 3 schools under observation, students were required to speak English when addressing

the teacher. Thus, addressing a teacher in English is a constituting part of the latter's

authority. This implies that, when a student used Kiswahili while identifying the teacher as his

'ratified primary recipient', both the legitimacy of English and the teacher's authority were

contested. Take a look at the following excerpt:

Excerpt 17 (appendix 1H)

40. t: ((l)people what’s going on there?)

41. s1: ((l)=abraham stole a pen)

83

42. s2: =and then put in bag?

43: t: ((to abraham) yes i am waiting for your mom in the afternoon//

44. abraham: yes ((l) ndiyo)

yes

45. s: ((laughing out loud))

46 t: ((l)you speak English to me)

47. abraham: (xxx)walikuja kwenye deski langu akachukua peni yangu

they came to my desk and he took my pen

48. nikawa (xxxx) rudisha peni yangu

i was bring back my pen49. t: ((to s1) (l) and why don’t you use this one (1) if it was yours why did you hide)

50. abraham:no nimemuomba

no i did ask

Again in class 6 of the Hekima Waldorf School, students are engaged in an argument over a

pen. In line 43, the teacher tells Abraham, who is accused of stealing the pen, that she will

talk to his mother that afternoon and tell her about his bad behaviour. Abraham decides to

add insult to injury and replies: 'yes ndiyo'. Abraham knows that his emphasis on the

Kiswahili word 'ndiyo' (meaning: yes) is provocative behaviour because (1) a student should

not contradict a teacher and, more importantly, (2) a student should respect a teacher's

authority by addressing the latter in English. The laughter of Abraham's fellow students in line

45 provides further evidence of this fact. In line 46, the teacher makes note of the subversive

action and states Abraham should not speak Kiswahili to the teacher. Abraham, however,

disobeys by continuing his discourse using Kiswahili.

The analysis of the patterns of code switching across turns in classroom activities provides

illuminating insights into the ways in which asymmetrical relations of language, power, and

authority are being constituted, negotiated and contested in classrooms. The IRE, and by

extension the IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-EL2', exemplifies the asymmetric and restrictive nature of

classroom talk and hence indexes the relative status of participants. As Candela (1999)

pointed out, discourse patterns establish hierarchies of participation. However, recent studies

have shown that patterns of classroom interaction are not as ordered and systematic as one

might think, but instead are complex and sometimes un-ruled structures. Even within an IRE

discourse, students demonstrate their agency and negotiate legitimacy of language,

authority, and knowledge. Hence, the IRE discourse does not always define who is in control

of what is being said and how it is said. Candela (1999) argues that the asymmetry of power

and authority in classrooms appears on two interfacing levels. First, there is an institutional

asymmetry because the teacher is believed to have the authority over the legitimate

84

knowledge and over the transmittance of that knowledge. This institutional asymmetry grants

teachers the role to guiding, organizing, and orienting school tasks. Students recognize and

follow this role. A second manifestation of asymmetry recognized by Candela, is one that is

constructed and defined in the turn taking details of classroom interaction. “[A]n endemic

feature of any turn at talk, such that both discourse dynamics and context are modified and

negotiated between teacher and students” is the power to influence the next turn. Hence,

students can make use of this local power in classroom interactional settings (Candela,

1999: 158-159).

4.3.2. Turn taking and deconstructing legitimacy

Turn-taking is one of the aspects of interactional practices that shows how different

dimensions of legitimate language interact. It is a question about both how legitimate

language and knowledge are constructed and negotiated, and who decides what is

legitimate. In the previous section, the construction of (English) academic knowledge through

specific patterns of teacher-led sequences and repair practices were outlined. The teacher

had the authority to decide over what language should be used and what type of knowledge

should be constructed and transferred. Heller (1996) noted:

“[...] turn-taking is a window onto interlocutors’ struggles to be heard, to have their point of

view represented in public discourse” (Heller, 1996: 145).

In doing so, they not only contest the construction of English as a legitimate language, they

also undermine the teacher's authority and construct knowledge away from the English-

academic-knowledge paradigm. As Candela (1999) argued, part of a teacher's legitimate

authority is based on his, in principle, greater ownership of the legitimate knowledge and his

control over how this knowledge is transmitted. This also implies teachers have extended

power over the processes of turn taking. However, as can be seen in excerpt 18, students

can manipulate these processes. In excerpt 18, the teacher (t) is trying to find out whether or

not the students know to define 'female genital mutilation (FGM).


83. t: =what is female genital mutilation? (1,5)

84. because it is euh (2) it’s a custom in some tribes/ in some tribes/ in some african? (1) tribes//

85. but it has a very euh effect to women health//

86. what is it? what is it and give me euh an example of euh tribes that still practism this fgm/

85

87. female genital mutilation// (4)

88. what is it? (3)

89. ((teacher raises his voice)) just explain the way you know it the way you think euh (3) it’s correct (3)/ fgm

90. (5) what’s euh what’s fgm ?(6)

91. ((s) apa mnaniambia hamjui) female genital mutilation/ (2) heu? (2)

are you telling me here that you don’t know what

92. s-: ((s)ndiyo)

93. t: hivi kinachojadioiwa sana sana sana kwenye radio sasa hivi na wana siasa vyombo vya habari/

what is discussed so much, so much, so much in radios right now with politicians, all /sources of

information.

94. ((looks at s) =a lot of noise about fgm (1,5) yet you say you don’t know what fgm is//

95. uhu ((looks at s2)) (1,5) what is it?

96. s2: in kiswahili

97. s: ((laughter))

98. t: ah yes yes yes you want kiswahili that’s’ your mother language your mother tongue/

99. ((s) ah yes speak in kiswahili)//

100. s2: ukeketaji

mutilation.

101. t: what?

102. s2: ukeketaji

mutilation.

103. t: (writes it on the blackboard) ukeke?

104. s-: taji

105. t: ((s) huu ukeketaji ni kitu gani?)

what exactly is this mutilation?

106. s: = ((laughter) (7))

107. t: what is ukeketaji? (3)

mutilation

Excerpt 18 is derived from a Form 1 social science class in Zanaki Secondary School. In line

83, the teacher initiates a question: 'What is female genital mutilation'? After a pause of 1.5

seconds, no one answers. He continues using English and shows his authority on the subject

matter by displaying his knowledge on FGM in lines 84-87. He claims FGM is commonly

practiced in Africa and has consequences for the health of women. A 'conflict situation' arises

when the pattern of expectation of the question/answer adjacency pair is not realized. Hence,

86

the teacher initiates repair by reposing his question in lines 88 and 90. As stated earlier,

code-switching can occur in structural repairs as an assistance strategy utilized by teachers

for the purpose of subject comprehension. The code-switching in line 91 can, again, be

understood as being part of a structural repair practice. The conflict situation is characterized

by the same pattern until line 96. In line 96, a student (s2) asks the teacher if she can answer

his question in Kiswahili. By posing this counter-question, s2 takes control of the turn taking

structure. Hence, it is no longer the teacher initiating the question, but it is now the student.

Immediately after posing her question, both s2 and her fellow students start laughing. The

laughter can be interpreted as indexing students' awareness of the new unusual and

challenging turn the organization and form of the interaction is taking. Not only is s2 taking

over the teacher's authority to decide over the turn-taking structure, she is also contesting the

legitimacy of English as the language through which knowledge is delivered. In line 100, s2

says FGM means 'ukeketaji'. She is now displaying her own knowledge of FGM. Not only

does she know what FGM means, she also knows what term is used to describe this

phenomenon in Kiswahili. Hence, with the switch to Kiswahili and the production of the word

'ukeketaji', s2 is creating a new form of knowledge that does not conform to the prescriptions

of the (language in) educational curriculum. In doing so, s2 demonstrates that she is a well-

informed and competent interactional participant who is also capable of determining further

development and orientation of classroom discourse. Student-induced control through

language becomes clear in line 103 when the teacher walks towards the blackboard and

writes down the word 'ukeketaji'. A few moments later, he continues in Kiswahili and asks

what exactly this word means (line 105). The authority over knowledge is now in the hands of

s2. All participants seem to be aware of the challenging nature of s2's interactional behavior

as they all start laughing out loud as soon as the teacher posed his question in line 105.

Mercado (1991) argues that a teacher needs the collaboration of his students in order to

maintain the classroom communication. As observed in the transcription of excerpt 18, the

teacher, from line 83 until line 96, is engaged in a monologue, trying to elicit an answer from

the students. Although it is clear that at least one student (s2) knew the answer to his

question, no one cooperated with the teacher and provided an answer. Whether s2's fellow

students were deliberately resisting the appeal to participate is not clear. However, s2 must

have known the answer before she decided to respond to the teacher's question. This is a

fact because the teacher never provided an answer to his own question before s2 came into

the picture. Hence, it is possible that s2 was consciously refusing to follow the teacher's

orientation both in what (content) he was saying and in how (linguistic form) he was saying it.

When students refuse to participate, the teacher's control is broken, and he can no longer

use his institutional power to determine classroom discourse. This can also explain why the

87

teacher showed no resistance towards s2's desire to speak Kiswahili. Participation was

urgently needed to be able to continue the lesson, and the teacher only got one student

willing to respond to his question.

As we can see from the transcript, there is still a clear 'IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-EL2' discourse

format visible in this example. The teacher makes an L2 initiation in line 83 and switches to

the L1 in line 91. The student responds in the L1 in line 100. Hereafter the teacher starts

evaluating in line 103 where he uses the L2, and continues his evaluation in line 106 in the

L1. This implies that even within an 'IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-EL2' structure, the teacher's control

over classroom discourse is not guaranteed. This is because the student's responses do not

necessarily correspond to what (English academic knowledge) the teacher is trying to obtain

and how (English) he is trying to obtain it. Therefore, the 'IL2-IL1-RL1-EL1-EL2' structure

cannot guarantee that the teacher is in control of the knowledge that is being distributed and

the language through which it is distributed.

4.3.3. Identity, authority and legitimacy: membership categorization

Excerpt 18 illustrated how students can undermine the teacher's authority and the legitimacy

of English in the classroom through the manipulation of interactional discourse. However, in

some cases, teachers themselves try to minimize their authority in the interactional setting

and by extension the legitimacy of English. A teacher's authority is derived from its power

related to his/her institutional identity. However, in analysing institutional talk, one has to take

into account that identities are never fixed and do not precede interaction. Instead, identities

are multiple and shifting, and are created in and through interaction. This implies that, even in

institutional settings, identities are constantly being negotiated and categorized. In the

tradition of CA, the analytic tool concerned with the dynamics of identity in interaction is the

so called 'membership categorisation analysis' (MCA).

The basic tenet of MCA, developed by Harvey Sacks, was the notion that people, through

using language, organize the world in different categories. MCA attempts to explicate how

people categorize themselves and others by means of specific activities. Sacks introduced

the notion of 'membership category' to refer to any 'common sense description' which is used

to describe and identify members of certain population groups (D'hondt, 2000: 51-53).

[Mother] and [baby] can exemplify such 'membership category'. In the classrooms observed,

teachers occupied more realms than solely a [teacher]. Instead, there were multiple

'membership categories' possible to characterize and identify them. All teachers can, for

88

example, be categorized as [Kiswahili-speakers] and [English-speakers]. At the same time,

they can all be described as [man] or [woman], [Tanzanian]. To refer to a collection of

'membership categories' that can be seen as 'commonsensically' belonging together, and for

the rules on how to correctly use these categories, Sacks introduced the notion of

'membership categorization device' (MCD) (D'hondt, 2000: 53). [Family], for example, can

serve as an MCD of categories like [mother], [baby], [father], [brother] or [aunt]. Other

categories, such as [liberal] and [football player], then, do not belong to the [family] MCD.

Sacks further argued that every category entails certain expectations or that certain activities

are associated with particular categories. He termed these 'category bound

activities' (CBA's). A mother, for example, is expected to comfort her baby when the latter is

crying. This example also explains what Sacks referred to as 'standardized relational

pair' (SRP), or categories that stand in a conventional relationship to each other. The

association between categories, then, is so self-evident that mentioning one category is

enough to automatically infer the other category (D'hondt, 2000: 56). [Mother] and [baby],

[friend] and [friend], [doctor] and [patient], can all be considered as ‘standardized relational

pairs’. Likewise, a category like [teacher] is tied to the category [student] and can be

classified under the MCD [classroom participant]. Most SRP categories usually hold certain

rights and obligations to one another. In this case, the teacher is expected to transfer

knowledge, listen to the students and answer their questions. A student on the other hand, is

expected to be quiet, participate when wanted, and ask questions when something is

unclear.

Higgins (2007) has drawn attention to how multilingual people use code-switching in, or

sometimes in collusion with, membership categories of interculturality to establish their own

and others' social identities. As seen in excerpt 19a and 19b, teachers can minimize their

authority, and by extension the legitimacy of English (knowledge), by means of code-

switching and membership categories.

Excerpt 19a (appendix 1A):

38. t: now/ what are this euh social cultural practices affecting women (xxxxx) (xxxx) euh (xxx) (xxx)/

39. of course you can even say it from euh you’re your own euh an example from our own family/ because we have

40. some euh other things that of course if you try to analyse them you can see that they are oppressing? (2)

the women position/ they are affecting you (3) (xxxx) (xx) (xxxxxxx) because they are from your home// (3)

42. your brother tells you=

43. =((change in voice) he:y khadija nenda ukalete maji kachote maji khadija pika)

khadija, go and bring water, fetch water. khadija cook

89

44. is that clear?

45. s1: yes

46. t: =((change in voice) khadidja pika. khadidja osha vyombo)

khadidja cook. khadidja wash the dishes.

47. t: and they are doing them together with the man /

48. = is it? but while they are doing all those things your man is there sits here euh watch watching tv and that (xxxxx)

49. is it clear?

50. s+: ((laughing) yes

Higgins describes 'interculturality' as cultural affiliation that produces cultural differences

which are made relevant through conversation (Higgins, 2007: 51). She shows how

participants construct MCD's concerning interculturality through explicit mention of particular

categories as well as 'category bound activities' (CBA's) indexing these categories. In excerpt

19a, similar processes can be identified. The teacher is explaining that social cultural

practices affecting women also occur within the participants' close life environment. Through

his discourse he creates MCD's of interculturality related to practices that oppress women. In

line 39, he says: certain social cultural practices occur in 'our own families' and 'we have'

practices that oppress women. By using the words 'our families' and 'we', the teacher

establishes interculturality between the participants, who are believed to share certain social

culture practices that other people do not share. Hence, through his talk, an 'insider' and

'outsider' MCD is established. The CBA's which organise all classroom participants within the

same group are the social cultural activities that oppress women. In doing this, the teacher

creates a less distanced and non-institutionally defined relationship with his students. He is

presenting himself to his students as a member of the same cultural group. However, by

using English, he is still partly performing his institutional identity. This also shows how

different membership categories can occur at the same time in the interactional discourse.

Hirsh (2002: 63-65) observed that 'dramatization' in an instititutional context can be used to

alter the participation framework to allow, for example, a teacher to step out of his

authoritative role. In lines 43 and 46, the teacher dramatizes an encounter between a brother

and a sister at home. Right before the dramatization, however, he explains that the brother is

not just any brother, but he is your brother (line 42). This implies that the teacher will not

longer be talking to his students as a teacher and students will step out of their understood

role as well. Instead, the teacher will be talking as 'insider' to 'insider' in a non-institutional

environment. The dramatized encounter is characterized by a higher voice and use of

Kiswahili. Both are contextualization cues indexing that we are now dealing with a

dramatization. The switch to Kiswahili indexes a complete abandonment of the authoritative

90

identity and the institutional context. At the same time all participants are aligned as

members of the same cultural group. In line 47, the teacher switches back to English. This

re-establishes the institutional identities, together with the asymmetric relationship between

them.

What is more, as we can infer from student's laughter at the end of the excerpt19a (line 50),

the use of Kiswahili created an informal atmosphere. This kind of warmth and closeness

hardly ever occurred during regular English teaching discourse. English seemed to index a

much more distant and formal relationship between teachers and students than Kiswahili.

Similarly, Merrit et al (1992), Adendorff (1993), and others have noted in their studies that

English as a (foreign) medium of instruction has a distancing effect. In regard, Gumperz

(1982) claims that languages in bilingual communities are associated with different values

and identities. One is the 'we-code', the other is the 'they-code'. He says:

“[...]The tendency is for the ethnically specific, minority language to be regarded as the 'we-

code' and become associated with in-group and informal activities, and for the majority

language to serve as the 'they-code' associated with more formal, stiffer less personal out-

group relations” (Gumperz, 1982: 66).

Scholars like Sebba and Wootton (1999) have pointed to the problematic nature of this

formulation because it, among other things, tends to externalize the meanings of

conversational code-switching from interaction into pre-existing speaker's identity. However,

as Sebba and Wootton (1999: 261) demonstrates, identities are not 'brought along' but rather

'brought about' or constituted in and through interaction in specific local context. Even though

this implies that there is no such stable dichotomy of 'we-code' versus 'they-code', it is still an

appealing notion from a (semi) macro-social perspective. In contrast to what Gumperz (1982)

stated, the 'we-code' in the classrooms observed is not the minority language. Instead, it is

the majority language Kiswahili which functions as a 'we-code' and, as illustrated in excerpt

19a, is associated with informal, in-group activities. Although English enjoys a higher status,

the 'foreignness' or 'they-ness' of the language is obvious.

The teacher from excerpt 19a creates a similar situation a few minutes later. This time, the

dramatization involves an encounter between a woman and a man from the Masaai

community.

Excerpt 19b (appendix1A):

198. womens are nothing// (2)

199. (( change in voice) na wewe hujafanyiwa tohara / )

91

you you. haven’t undergone a circumcision?

200. ((change in voice) hujafanyiwa? (1) [tohara] / )

you haven’t undergone a circumcision?

201. s-: ((l) [tohara] )

circumcision

202. so you are not a human/

203 is that clear?

204. s+: ((l)yes)

205. T: =so you are not a? (1)

206. s+: ((l)human//)

The dramatization in this excerpt is used to set an example of how female members of the

Masaai community are, according to the teacher, treated by the rest of their community if

they have not undergone a circumcision. Again, the teacher steps out of his authoritative role

and creates an 'insider' to 'insider' situation. What is interesting is the use of the notion

'tohara' (circumcision) instead of 'ukeketaji' (mutilation). As Mwaipopo (2004: 22) points out,

'tohara' was commonly used in Tanzania prior to the spread of the notion 'ukeketaji'. Over 10

years ago, the international community adopted the term FGM (female genital mutilation)

because it clearly indicated the harm caused by the practice of circumcision. Since then, the

term 'ukeketaji' (mutilation) has been adopted by human rights organisations working with

Tanzanian communities that practice FGM (Mwaipopo, 2004: 22). Rahman and Toubia (in

Mwaipopo 2004) have observed that, although the terms 'FGM' and 'ukeketaji' have been

very effective advocacy and policy tools, many organisations concerned with circumcision

have found that these terms are often not preferred by practising communities. Moreover, the

use of ' FGM' and 'ukeketaji' were often found to be very offensive or even shocking to

women who never considered the practice a 'mutilation' (Mwaipopo, 2004).

4.3.4. Authority, English, culture and textbooks

Ernst-Slavit (1997) pointed out that, for all those involved in second language learning

education, it is imperative to help students integrate what they already know with what

knowledge the school offers them. He argues that; “linking those two worlds and bridging

those two cultures is the challenge of teachers in bilingual and multicultural settings” (Ernst-

Slavit, 1997: 26). Ndayipfukamiyu (1996) made similar observations, and showed how code-

92

switching between a foreign language and an L1 helps to bridge the gap between the world

of school and textbooks and students' existing knowledge. In excerpt 19b, the use of the

word 'tohara', in combination with the dramatized encounter, takes into account students'

own linguistic and sociocultural experiences. The teacher is talking to them from 'cultural

member to cultural member' and the word FGM is not associated with the same cultural

norms and values as 'tohara'. As I mentioned earlier, some people might not even see the

practice of circumcision as mutilation. Hence, 'tohara' can bring school knowledge closer to

their homes and their world. However, the word 'FGM' was most frequently used during the

lesson. This can be explained by the fact that the teacher was frequently reading from his

textbook. After class, I took a closer look at this textbook, and, indeed, only the notion of

'female genital mutilation' was mentioned. Hence, one can argue that using 'tohara' ultimately

serves to reinforce the construction of (English) school knowledge. Further evidence of this

can be found in the fact that 'tohara' was only used during this particular dramatization. It was

used in a moment where the teacher stepped out of his authoritative institutional identity.

Once he switched back to English and the world of textbooks, he only used the word FGM.

During this 'official discourse', FGM was described as a dangerous and harmful practice and

students’ own experiences with circumcision were no longer taken into account. This

supports the thesis of Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) that schools and interactional

classroom practices reflect the experiences of the dominant class. In following his textbook,

the teacher privileged the transmission of certain cultural practices, linguistic forms, and

instructional content over others. Hence, ultimately, 'tohara' was used to reinforce the social

and linguistics order in schools, and by extension, in Tanzanian society. It is useful at this

point of the discussion to shed light on what Luke et al (1989: 256) have called the 'co-

constituting of one authoritative identity' by the teacher and the textbook. In most of the

classes observed, as in the class on FGM, textbooks played a central position in the lesson.

Textbooks define what legitimate knowledge (and language) is and teachers are positioned

to give the text a voice. Teachers are perceived to be authoritative interpreters, mediators

and transmitters of the text (Luke et al, 1989: 256).

Pennycook (1989) argues that textbooks are a set of social relations that define what the

legitimate knowledge, language, and culture is that must be transmitted. When it comes

down to English teaching textbooks, Pennycook (1989) claims that they are presented as

having neutral knowledge, but in reality:

"[….] all knowledge is produced within a particular configuration of social, cultural, economic,

political and historical circumstances and therefore always both reflects and helps to

(re)produce those conditions. Furthermore, since all claims to knowledge represent the

93

interests of certain individuals or groups, we must always see knowledge as

interested" (Pennycook, 1989: 595).

Hence, textbooks are socio-cultural, political and economics products. This implies that

English textbooks, as produced in the United Kingdom and the United States, reflect

particular ideas about life, about the world, and about language. For Neke (2003: 219),

English textbooks need to be seen as discourses of particular patterns of life, experiences

and histories of people. He further claims that, in order to meet the socio-cultural, political

and economical interests of the dominant group(s), knowledge in textbooks is selected and

organized in a way that students inculcate certain aspirations, attitudes and modes of

reasoning. In short, textbooks tend to explain and justify ideas of dominant groups. The use

of English language textbooks in countries like Tanzania has multiple ideological implications.

First, it (re)produces ideologies of Standard English. Because textbooks are written in what is

believed to be 'correct', 'educated and 'sophisticated' English, ideologies about a 'real

language' are maintained (Milroy, 2001). Furthermore, it reinforces ideologies about what

Standard English can do. Because this variant of English is inextricably linked to knowledge

and education, it is authorized to transfer (English) knowledge. Hence, English language

textbooks reinforce the symbolic value attached to English in Tanzania (Milroy, 2001). A

second set of ideological implications of these textbooks has to do with what I was told by Dr.

Kadaghe in an interview:

“[….] the thinking an the writing is entrenched in the language of the owner of this particular

language. Worlds are seen differently according to the language you use..” (Open field

interviews: appendix 2B, Michael Kadeghe).

What Dr. Kadeghe is referring to is the idea that English, as any other language, carries

certain perceptions, ideas, and cultural baggage in general. Although not as drastic as the

strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language determines thought, it is certainly

justified to claim that the phenomenology of a speakers community is reflected in their

language. Neke (2003: 70) argues that English language textbooks represent cultural ideas

and representations of the world as envisioned by the West. In other words, English is a

socio-cultural product and through its use in textbooks, visions of the world as seen by the

West are maintained and presented as universal to Tanzanian children. The outcome is that

students most likely adopt these western views. As Pennycook (1989&1998) pointed out, this

in turn can result in the devaluation of ones own cultural frames and the submission to

ideologies of the superiority of western culture. The following excerpt from Kenton High

School, where the hegemony of English was nearly absolute, illustrates this point further. The

94

excerpt was observed at the beginning of a Form 5 English class that started at 8:30 am.

When one student (s1) arrived late, at 9:10 am, the following interaction was observed:

Excerpt 20 (appendix 1J):

8: t: ((puts her textbook down and looks at s1) what time is it?) (5)

9: s1: ((looks at his watch) ni saa tatu)

it is three o'clock

10: s: ((students laugh))

11: t: =this is class/ you come to class now?

12: ((looks at s1) it is ten past nine)

13: ((looks at the class)) that is what he said/ it is three//

14: ((looks at s1) look at your watch)

15: ((looks at the class)) it is three, that is what he says)//

16: three?

17: ((raises her voice)) now/ you you still don't know how to count?

18: ((acts surprised) you can't use your watch?) (2)

19: now/ what time is it?[yes this is the same] thing we are talking about time here//

20: s: [((stundents laugh))]

21: how ? you see the time? how to read time? look in your books how to read time//

22: and now? somebody is saying it is 3?

23: that is kiswahili, you count in english here//

24: =someone tell us the time (5)?

25: s0: (xxxxxxxxxxx)

26: t: ok/ somenone with a watch? (5)

27: ((looks at student s2in the back) yes)?

28: s2: ((no respons follows))

29: t: oh my goodness, you don't know how to use your watches (3)?

Before the student (s1) came in, the teacher was teaching an English class on the

conditional tenses. When s1 enters the class, the pedagogical frame is suspended and the

teacher indexes a shift of frame by putting her textbook down, turning her body towards s1,

and addressing at him directly. In line 8, she asks him for the time. S1 looks at his watch and

says: 'ni saa tatu' (translation: it is three o'clock). Following this, the teacher reminds him that

he is late for class (line 11) and that it is not 3:00 am but 9:10 am (line12). This last action,

95

however, is an interesting manifestation of ideological repair. In 'Swahili culture', time

‘traditionally’ defers from the Anglo-American version of measuring time.

Kokole (1994) investigated the interconnection between language and concepts of time

across different ethnolinguistic groups in Africa. One of these groups were Kiswahili

speakers. In Kiswahili, the day itself, as a 24 hour period, is traditionally divided into two

major components: daylight time and night. The daylight time is associated with sunlight

(Kokole, 1994: 46). Generally, sunrise in the east represents the beginning of the day;

midday is when the sun is above one's head; and the end of the day is represented by the

disappearance of the sun to the west. Closely related to the use of the location of the sun as

a kind of chronometer, are meal times that correspond with morning, midday and evening. In

Kiswahili, for example, 'chakula cha asubuhi' means food or meal of the morning, 'chakula

cha mchana' means food or meal of the day, and 'chakula cha jioni' means food or meal of

the evening. Therefore, time is in part correlated with a social institution that converts a

biological need (food) to an opportunity familiar or social congregation and sharing at fairly

predictable intervals every day (Kokole, 1994: 47). Hence, events are used to periodize time.

(Kokole, 1994: 48). Day and night are further subdivided into smaller units of time. The

morning does not begin at midnight as in Western cultures, but with the rising of the sun at

dawn. This implies that, whereas in Anglo-American culture the first hour of the day (1am) is

the first our after midnight, in Swahili culture the first hour of the day occurs one hour after

sunrise. One o'clock in Kiswahili is thus seven o'clock (7am) according to the English way of

reckoning time. Thus, time varies with the language one speaks. What is 7 am in English

would be 1 am in Kiswahili, and what is 7 pm in English would be 1 pm in Kiswahili. This is

logical since many Kiswahili speakers live close to the equator where the sun rises and sets

around the same time every day of the year. Although not all Kiswahili speakers still measure

time in this 'traditional' way, there are many of them who still do, including the student in

excerpt 20. What was 9:10 am according to Anglo-American time system was about 3 o'clock

according to the students' own Kiswahili cultural frame. However, in this school, thinking

within and through a cultural (time) frame other than the Anglo-American one is not tolerated.

In fact, it is asserted to be 'wrong' and even 'uneducated' when students do. As we saw in

line 17, the teacher says 'you still don't know how to count?'. In the next line she states: 'you

can't use your watch?'. But, the student does know 'how to count' and 'how to read his

watch'. He just does not do it in a way that corresponds to the Anglo-American frame of

thinking. Therefore, it is perceived to be 'wrong'. In line 21, the teacher claims that if one

wants to know how to read the time, one needs to look at the (English) textbook that explains

how this is done 'rightly'. However, these textbooks only refer to one way of conceptualizing

time, representing it as universal and neutral. By consequence, students might start looking

96

down upon their own cultural (time) representations and perceive them as 'inferior' to the

'real' or 'correct' representations as presented in the English textbooks. Adjaye (1994: 3)

points out that, 'primitive Africans' were “depicted as being deficient in delineating relations of

time, because time was considered a product of mental activity in which 'inferior societies'

were thought to be wanting”. He further claims that the 'primitives' languages' were perceived

to be deficient in method in rendering relations of time. This way, 'primitive time', as reflected

through 'primitive languages', was contrasted to 'civilized time' of Westerners. According to

Pennycook (1989&1998) these kinds of colonial representations of Western superiority are

still implicitly and explicitly embedded in English language teaching textbooks today.

The teacher in the extract initiated ideological repair. As can be seen in line 23, she

recognizes that what s1 said was 'Swahili time', but she claims that he needs to speak/think/

count in English in the classroom. Even though not necessarily linked to the immediate

pedagogical frame of doing an English lesson, teacher and student are engaged in

negotiating the legitimacy of English. In doing so, the proposition that 'real knowledge' is

found in English was negotiated and re-established. Furthermore, the example illustrates

how legitimate language and knowledge are closely associated with negotiating cultural

identities and representations of the world. This in turn raises fundamental questions of who's

(cultural) representations are considered valuable and legitimate. The role of English

language teaching textbooks has to be taken into account when analysing these processes

of legitimacy. Textbooks always carry certain perceptions, attitudes, representations and

visions of the world. Hence, when bringing in these textbooks in educational settings where

other social cultural systems exist, one also brings in particular views about language, culture

and the world in general in the schooling arena. This can result in the denigration of ones

own cultural system, including language, and cultural alienation. As Hirst (2007) point out:

"[….] it is through their participation in culture-specific social events that individuals are

interpellated into particular subject positions, and appropriate or master how to ‘be’ a

particular kind of person. These culture specific ways of 'being' entail the use of socially

appropriate discourse genres and, indeed, socially appropriate ways of acting, valuing and

thinking” (Hirst, 2007: 160).

97

5. Conclusion

It is imperative that languages, whether Kiswahili or English, are not neutral because all

languages carry socio-cultural, economical and political symbolic meanings. Classrooms are

the primary agents in the construction, negotiation, and contesting of these meanings. This

chapter showed how the detailed analysis of classroom interaction from a conversation

analytic perspective, reveals illuminating insight into how such processes function. More

specifically, it was showed how the practice of code-switching in specific interactional

practices and structures is used to construct, negotiate or contest different dimensions of the

legitimacy of English. In doing so, the classrooms observed are sites of struggle where

languages, cultures, representations, identities and knowledge all compete for legitimacy.

However, code-switching also reflects the sociolinguistic conditions beyond the classroom.

Micro-linguistic behavior is constantly interfacing with semi-macro and macro ideologies

underpinning language-in-education policies and maintaining the hegemony of English in

Tanzania. These ideologies are not only reflected in classroom interaction, but they are also

produced, reproduced and challenged in and through this interaction.

98

Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations

When addressing the issue of English-in-education in Tanzania, many factors must be

considered. Most studies have focussed on the implications of the use of English as a

medium of instruction for students’ educational performance. Although it is unambiguously

true that English instruction is a major cause of falling educational standards in Tanzania,

there are a range of other implications that go beyond this alarming fact.

As shown in Chapter 2, the English-in-education policy is an element of exclusion in

Tanzanian society. It contributes to social and economic inequalities through the unequal

distribution of, and accessibility to, this linguistics resource. This results in the formation and

reproduction of different social groups. These processes are naturalized through language

ideologies about English that equalize the language to education, knowledge, and

development. All of this is legitimatized though the use of English in education. It has to be

stressed though that it is not language as such that creates different classes. A high

proficiency in English is – among other things – a symbol of status, and those who possess

this proficiency do not necessarily have control over its class-marking power. It is part of the

structure of Tanzanian society that is the result of a long and complex history. However, this

need not be an unchangeable process. Analyzing language ideologies and their historical

growth reveal that ideas about language are not static -even though deeply entrenched in

people’s minds – and can be changed and manipulated. This first calls for a change in the

mindset of policy makers who need to be critically aware of these ideas and recognize how

they become legitimatized through language-in-education policies and what its effects are on

Tanzanian society. Changing the medium of instruction to Kiswahili would be a step in the

right direction, for not only would it democratize education, which is a fundamental human

right, it would also help democratizing Tanzanian society and empower a large majority of

Tanzanians who are now being left marginalised and without a voice to be heard.

The best way for policy makers to see and understand the vastness of the problem, is to go

back to the key site where the struggle takes place, i.e. the classroom. In Chapter 3, it was

shown how classrooms are the primary agents in (re) producing (language) ideologies and

relations of power. From a conversation analytic perspective on code-switching between

Kiswahili and English, the analysis revealed how the legitimacy of English is constructed,

negotiated and challenged in the micro-politics of interaction. In addition, it was shown that

the struggle is not solely about language and raises questions about other aspects of

legitimacy such as cultures, representations, identities and knowledge. All of these aspects

are interwoven with one another and compete for legitimacy in and through interaction. The

99

semi-macro politics of language policy on the institutional level plays a crucial role in this, for

it co-constitutes the degree in which legitimacy is ‘allowed’ to be negotiated and contested.

Perhaps two of the most fundamental questions policy makers should ask themselves is (1)

how transferable and relevant are the knowledge and ideas that are delivered in English to

the home and day to day situation of the learners, and (2), what are the implications of using

this foreign language on the minds of these learners. In the words of Dr. Qorro:

“[…] Can you imagine how much damage you are doing to these children when you tell them

that their language is useless? And if you say that.. everything that goes with that language:

the culture, their home, whatever is attached to the language, knowledge and practices are

not good, are not valued.… Schools are suppose to teach only good things. So, what is not

wanted is not a good thing…. If education tells me that my language is not good, my culture

is not good and I have no other culture... how prepared am I to go back to it?...After school

you are bound to look for some place else, you don't want to go back home….it doesn't train

you to be with your people... . You are talking about removing children from their home to an

environment different from the home, and teaching them something different from the

knowledge at home, prohibiting them to use knowledge or know knowledge from home ...and

at the end of the day you would want them to go back? Where? How? … They don't fit in

anywhere” (Open field interviews: appendix 2A, Martha Qorro).

In regard, Senkoro (2004: 56) claims that insisting on using a foreign language as a medium

of instruction in Africa is both unethical and tantamount to committing intellectual and cultural

genocide to the majority of African youth. This is why a decision to implement English as a

medium of instruction throughout all educational levels would only intensify the problem,

even if efforts are being made to strengthen the language by improving the teachers’ and

students’ proficiency in English. The use of English textbooks contributes to these processes

of cultural alienation because they are entrenched – albeit unwillingly – with ideas and

representations of a world that is foreign to the world of Tanzanian children. This too needs to

be taken into account by policy makers. Moreover, there is – indeed- a lack of textbooks

written in Kiswahili, but the only way to create a market for this is by using the language as a

medium of instruction.

There is a need in Tanzania and Africa at large, to use African languages in education. Not

only will this contribute to personal development but it will also bring about national

development. The best examples of this are the South East Asian countries who until the

mid-1960’s were part of the Third World and used English as a medium of instruction. Today

they are becoming part of the so called ‘First World’ and are better known now as the ‘East

Asian Tigers’. In addition, once local languages in these countries replaced the role of

100

English-in-education, knowledge started trickling down from just a few elites at the top to the

majority of the population in factories and all the workplaces. It was this spread of knowledge

that contributed to increased performance and production output. For example, in the case of

Sri-Lanka, Ranaweera (1976: 423) showed how using the national language in the teaching

of science contributed to the elimination of the barrier between the privileged English

educated classes, the science educated elite and the non-science educated masses, and

thus between science itself and the people. Ranaweera claims that the use of the national

language in the teaching of science made the common man (and woman) realize that

science is within their reach and that the knowledge of English by teachers and students

need not be requirements for learning science (Ranaweera, 1976: 423).

Though it is true that English is an important medium of communication in this era of

globalization, I believe that the best way to learn this foreign language is not through having it

as a medium of instruction, but by learning it as a subject. As Krashen’s (1985) theory on

second language acquisition pointed out, learning needs to take place in a language children

understand. This enables them to have a grip on the conceptual knowledge that is being

taught and gives them a strong foundation in their first literacy language. This, in turn, will

inevitably improve a child’s capacity to acquire a foreign language. In addition, learning

through a language they understand will ‘give them a voice’ in which they can exercise their

natural right to participate consciously in the sociocultural transformation of their respective

nations. These necessary changes will lead to the creation of an independent society with its

own voice (Freire & Macedo, 1985: 50).

I do not wish to argue that a change to Kiswahili as a medium of instruction will immediately

solve all of Tanzania’s problems, nor do I claim that there will be no setbacks before the

situation improves. But, as these Kiswahili proverbs wisely say:

Penye nia pana njia. Kila mwenye kusubiri hakosi kitu.21

101

21. Where there is a will there is a way. With patience, you always stand to win.

References

Adendorff, Ralph

1993 Code-switching amongst Zulu-speaking teachers and their pupils: its functions and

implications for teacher education. Language and education 7/3: 141-161.

Adjaye, Joseph K.

1994 Time in the black experience . Westport: Greenwood Press.

Arthur, Jo

1996 Code switching and collusion: classroom interaction in Botswana primary schools.

Linguistics and education 8: 17-33.

Auer, Peter

1984 Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

1995 The pragmatics of code-switching: a sequential approach. In Lesley Milroy & Pieter

Muyskens (eds.) One speaker, two languages: cross-disciplinary perspectives on

code-switching: 115-135. Cambridge: University Press.

Bamgbose, Ayo

2003 A recurring decimal: English in language policy and planning. World Englishes 22/4:

283-292.

Batibo, Herman

1995 The growth of Kiswahili as language of education and administration in Tanzania. In

Martin Putz (ed.) Discrimination through language in Africa: perspectives on the

Namibian experience: 57-80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bilmes, Jack

1988 The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in society 17/2:

161-181.

Boyle, Ronald

2000 Whatever happened to preference organization? Journal of pragmatics 32/5: 583-604.

102

Blom, Jan-Petter & Gumperz John

1972 Social meaning in linguistic structure: code-switching in northern Norway. In John

Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of

communication: 407-434. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Blommaert, Jan

1994 The metaphors of development and modernization in Tanzanian language policy and

research. In Richard Fardon & Graham Furniss (eds.) African languages,

development and the state: 213-226. London: Routledge.

1999 State ideology and language in Tanzania. Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag.

Bokamba, Eyamba G.

1992 The Africanization of English. In Braj B. Kachru (ed.) The other tongue: English across

cultures: 125-147. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre

1977 The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social science information 16: 645- 668.

1991 Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. & Passeron, Jean Claude

1990 Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Boyle, Ronald

2000 Whatever happened to preference organization? Journal of pragmatics 32: 583-604.

Brock-Utne, Birgit

2000 Language, democracy and education in Africa. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitute.

2006 Learning through a familiar language versus learning through a foreign language: a

look into some secondary school classrooms in Tanzania. In Birgit Brock-Utne &

Zubeida Desai & Matha Qorro (eds.) Focus on fresh data on the language of

instruction debate in Tanzania and South Africa: 19-40. South Africa: African Minds.

Brutt-Griffler, Janina

2002 World English: a study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

103

Candela, Antonia

1999 Students' power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and education 10/2: 139-163.

Crystal, David

1997 English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

D’Hondt, Sigurd

2000 Conversation Analysis and history: Practical and Discursive Understanding in

Quarrels among Dar es Salaam Adolescents. Proefschrift UA: Antwerpen.

Drew, Paul & Heritage, John

1992 Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.) Talk at

work: 3-65.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, Alessandro

1997 Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ernst-Slavit, Gisela

1997 Different words, different worlds: language use, power and authorized language in a

bilingual classroom. Linguistics and education 9: 25-48.

Evans, Stephen

2002 Macaulay’s Minute revised: colonial language policy in nineteenth-century India.

Journal of multilingual and multicultural development 23/4: 260-281.

Fairclaugh, Norman

1989 Language and power. London: Longman.

Freire, Paulo & Macedo, Donaldo

1985 The politics of education, culture, power and liberation. London: MacMillan.

Galabwa, Justinian & Lwaitama, Azaveli

2005 Comparative analysis of performance in Kiswahili and English as language of

instruction at secondary level in selected Tanzanian schools. In Birgit Brock-Utne &

104

Zubeida Desai & Matha Qorro (eds.) LOITASA Research in progress: 139-159. Dar es

Salaam: KAD Associates.

Goffman, Ervin

1974 Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Goodman, Sharon. & Graddol, David

1996 Redesigning English: new texts, new identities. London: Routledge.

Gumperz, John

1982 Discourse strategies. Cambridge: University Press.

Heller, Monica

1988 Codeswitching: anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

1996 Legitimate language in a multilingual school. Linguistics and education 8: 139-158.

Heller, Monica & Martin-Jones, Marylin

1996a Introduction to the special issues on education in multilingual settings: Discourse,

identities, and power part I: constructing legitimacy. Linguistics and education 8: 3-16.

1996b Introduction to the special issues on education in multilingual settings: Discourse,

identities, and power part II: contesting legitimacy. Linguistics and education 8:

127-137.

Heritage, John

1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2005 Converation analysis and institutional talk. In K.L. Fitch & E. Robert & Sanders.

Handbook of language and social interaction: 103-158. London: Routledge.

Higgins, Christina

2007 Constructing membership in the in-group: affiliation and resistance among urban

Tanzanians. Pragmatics 17: 49-70.

105

Hirsh, Susan

2002 The power of participation: language and gender in Tanzanian law reform campaigns.

Africa today 2/49: 51-75.

Hirst, Elizabeth

2007 Identity construction in complex second language classrooms. International journal of

educational research 46: 159-171.

Holborrow, Marnie

1993 Review article: linguistic imperialism. ELT Journal 47/4: 358-360.

Jenkins, Richard

1992 Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routlegde.

Kachru, Braj B.

1997 World Englishes 2000: approaches, issues and resources. In Larry E. Smith &

Michael L. Forman (eds.). World Englishes 2000: 209-251. Honolulu: College of

Languages, Linguistics and Literature.

Kasper, Gabriele

1986 Learning, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Aarhus:

Aarhus University Press.

Kiango, John

2005 Tanzania’s historical contribution to the recognition and promotion of Swahili. Africa &

Asia 5: 157-166.

Kokole, Omari H.

1994 Time, language and the oral tradition: an African perspective. In Joseph K. Adjaye

(ed). Time in the black experience: 35-54. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Krashen, Stephen

1985 The input Hypothesis. London: Longman.

106

Lavob, William

1972 Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lin, Angel M.Y.

1996 Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and code

switching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and education 8: 49-84.

Luke, Carmen & Luke, Allan & De Castell, Suzanne

1989 Language, authority and criticism: reading on the school textbook. London: the

Falmer Press.

Lwaitama, Azaveli. & Rugemalira, Josephat M.

1990 The English Language Support Project in Tanzania. In Casmir. M. Rubagumya (ed.)

Language in education in Africa: a Tanzanian perspective: 36-41. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Malekela, George

2003 English as a medium of instruction in post-primary education in Tanzania: is it a fair

policy to the learner? In Birgit Brock-Utne & Zubeida Desai & Martha Qorro (eds.)

Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA):102-112. Dar es

Salaan: E&D Limited.

2004 Performance in the Certificate of Secondary Education Examination (CSEE): A

comparison between Kiswahili and English language subjects in Tanzania. In Birgit

Brock-Utne & Zubeida Desai & Martha Qorro (eds.) Researching the language of

instruction in Tanzania and South Africa. Cape-town: African Minds.

Malik, Nazor

1996 Extension of Kiswahili during the German colonial administration in continental

Tanzania (former Tanganyika), 1885-1917. AAP 47: 155-159.

Mandami, Mahmood

1999 Historicizing power and responses to power: Indirect rule and its reform. Social

Research 66/3: 859-886.

107

Martin-Jones, Marylin

1995 Code-switching in the classroom: two decades of research. In Lesley Milroy & Pieter

Muyskens (eds.) One speaker, two languages: cross-disciplinary perspectives on

code-switching: 90-112. Cambridge: University Press.

Mazrui, Ali A.

2004 English in Africa after the Cold War. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Mazrui, Ali A. & Mazrui, Alamin M.

1998 The power of Babel: language and governance in the African experience. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Mehan, Hugh

1979 Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Merrit, Marylin & Cleghorn, Ailie & Abagi, Jared & Bunyi, Grace

1992 Socialising multilingualism: determinants of codeswitching in Kenyan primary

classrooms. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development 13/1-2: 103-121.

Meyers-Scotton, Carol

1993 Social motivations for codeswitching: evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Milroy, James

1999 Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States. In Tony Bex

& Watts Richard (eds.) Standard English: the widening debate: 173-206. London:

Routledge.

2001 Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of

sociolinguistics 5/4: 530-555.

Ministry of Education and Culture

1995 Education and Training Policy, http://www.moe.go.tz/documents.html (5/09/2008).

1997 Cultural Policy, http://www.moe.go.tz/pdf/culturalpolicy.pdf (5/09/2008).

108

http://www.moe.go.tz/documents.html

http://www.moe.go.tz/documents.html

Ministry of Education and Vocational Training

2001 Education Sector Development Program. http://www.moe.go.tz/pdf/SDP-Document-

final%20draft.pdf (5/09/2008).

2007a Basic statistics in education. Standard I-VII enrolment on both government and non-

government primary schools, 2003-2007. http://www.moe.go.tz/statistics.html

(5/09/2008).

2007b Basic statistics in education. Secondary education: comparative enrolment

1967-2007. http://www.moe.go.tz/statistics.html (5/09/2008).

2007c Basic statistics in education. Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), results

1998-2006. http://www.moe.go.tz/statistics.html (5/09/2008).

2008 Basic statistics in education. System and structure of education and training. http://

www.moe.go.tz/statistics.html (5/09/2008).

Morrison, Keith & Lui Icy

2000 Ideology, linguistic capital and the medium of instruction in Hong Kong. Journal of

multilingual and multicultural development 21/6: 471-486.

Mulokozi, Mugyabuso M.

1997 Sociolinguistic research in Tanzania: themes, trends, priorities. In Birgit Smeija (ed.)

Swahili studies: essays in honour of Marcel van Spaandonck: 7-16. Gent: Academia

Press.

2002 Kiswahili as a National and International Language. Dar es Salaam: TUKI

Mwaipopo, Sarah

2004 The law and practice relating to Female Genital Mutilation in Tanzania. Lund: Lund

University.

Mwansoko, Herman

1990 The end of Swahilization for post-primary education in Tanzania? Journal of Asian and

African studies 40: 51-59.

109

http://www.moe.go.tz/statistics.html

http://www.moe.go.tz/pdf/SDP-Document-final%20draft.pdf













National Examination Council of Tanzania

2004 Statistics 2004. Primary School Leaving Examination results. http://www.necta.go.tz/

(5/09/2008).

National website of the United Republic of Tanzania

2008 Education. http://www.tanzania.go.tz/educationf.html (05/09/2008).

Neke, Stephen Mugeta

2003 English in Tanzania :an anatomy of hegemony. Gent: Universiteit Gent.

Ndaypfukamiye, Lin

1996 The contradictions of teaching bilingually in post-colonial Burundi: from nyakatsi to

maison on étage. Linguistics and education 8: 35-47.

Pennycook, Alastair

1989 The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching.

TESOL Quarterly 23/3: 589-618.

1998 English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.

2000 English, politics, ideology: from colonial celebration to postcolonial performativity. In

Thomas Ricento (ed.) Ideology, politics and language policies: focus on English:

108-119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Phillipson, Robert

1992 Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.

1997 Realities and Myths of Linguistic Imperialism. Journal of multilingual and multicultural

development 18/3: 238-248.

2001 English for globalisation or for the world’s people? International review of education

47/3-4: 185-200.

Pomerantz, Anita

1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/ dispreffered

turn shape. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) Structure of social action: studies in

conversation analysis: 57-101. Cambridge: University Press.

110

http://www.tanzania.go.tz/educationf.html

http://www.necta.go.tz/

http://www.necta.go.tz/

http://www.tanzania.go.tz/educationf.html

Prah, Kwesi Kwaa

2003 Going native: language of instruction for education, development and African

emancipation. In Birgit Brock-Utne & Zubeida Desai & Martha Qorro (eds.)

Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA): 14-34. Dar

es Salaam: E&D Limited.

Puja, Grace Khwaya

2003 Kiswahili and higher education in Tanzania: reflections based on a sociological from

three Tanzanian university campuses. In Birgit Brock-Utne & Zubeida Desai & Martha

Qorro (eds.) Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA):

113-128. Dar es Salaam: E&D Limited.

Qorro, Martha

2003 Unlocking language forts: the language of instruction in post-primary education in

Africa with special reference to Tanzania. In Birgit Brock-Utne & Zubeida Desai &

Martha Qorro (eds.) Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA):

187-196. Dar es Salaam: E&D Limited.

2006 Testing students’ ability to learn through English during the transition from primary to

secondary schooling. In Birgit Brock-Utne & Zubeida Desai & Matha Qorro (eds.)

Focus on fresh data on the language of instruction debate in Tanzania and South

Africa: 69-101. South Africa: African Minds.

Ranaweera, Mahinda

1976 Sri Lanka: science teaching in the national language. Quarterly review of education 3:

416-423.

Ranger, Terrence

1993 The invention of tradition revisited: the case of colonial Africa. In Terrence Ranger and

Olufemi Vaughan (eds.) Legitimacy and the state in twentieth-century Africa: essays

in honour of A.H.M. Kirk-Greene: 62-111. Hampshire: Macmillan.

Razfar, Aria

2005 Language ideologies in practice: repair and classroom discourse. Linguistics and

education 16: 404-424.

111

Roy-Campbell, Zaline M. & Qorro, Martha

1997 Language crisis in Tanzania: the myth of English versus education. Dar es Salaam:

Mkuki na Nyota.

Roy- Campbell, Zaline M.

2001 Empowerment through language. Eritrea: Africa World Press.

Rubagumya, Casmir M.

1990 Language in Tanzania. In Casmir. M. Rubagumya (ed.) Language in education in

Africa: a Tanzanian perspective: 36-41. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

1991 Language promotion for educational purposes: the example of Tanzania. International

review of education 37/1: 67-85.

Shannon, Sheila

1995 The hegemony of English: a case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of

resistance. Linguistics and education 7: 175-200.

Schmied, Josef

1991 National and subnational features in Kenyan English. In Jenny Cheshire (ed.) English

around the world: sociolinguistic perspectives: 420-434. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sebba, Mark & Wootton, Tony

1999 We, they and identity: sequential versus identity-related explanation in code-

switching. In Peter Auer (ed.) Code-switching in conversation: language, interaction, and

identity: 262-289. London Routledge.

Seedhouse, Paul

2004 The interactional architecture of the language classroom: a conversation analysis

perspective. Malden: Blackwell publishing.

Senkoro, Fikeni

2004 The role of language in education and poverty alleviation: tool for access and

empowerment. In Justinian Galabwa & Anders Narman (eds.) Education, poverty and

inequality: 46-58. Dar es Salaam: KAD Associates.

112

Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove

1988 Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In Tove Skutnabb-Kangas &

James Cummins (eds.) Minority education: from shame to struggle: 9-44. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

2001 Globalisation of (educational) language rights. International review of education

47/3-4: 201-233.

Stroud, Christopher

1998 Perspectives on cultural variability of discourse and some implications for code-

switching. In Peter Auer (ed.) Code-switching in conversation: language, interaction,

and identity:321-348. London: Routledge.

Sumra, Suleman & Rajani, Rakesh

2006 Secondary education in Tanzania: key policy challenges. HakiElimu Working paper n

°4: 1-10.

Thompson, John

1992 Editor’s Introduction. In Pierre Bourdieu (ed.) Language & Symbolic Power (2nd ed.):

1-34. Cambridge: Polity press.

Unamuno, Virginia

2008 Multilinual switch in peer classroom interaction. Linguistics and education 19: 1-19.

Van Lier, Leo

1988 The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.

Wei, Li

1999 The ‘Why’ and ‘How’ questions in the analyses of conversational code-switching. In

Peter Auer (ed.) Code-switching in conversation: language, interaction, and identity:

156-179. London Routledge.

Wei, Li & Martin, Peter

2008 Conflicts and tensions in classroom codeswitching: an introduction. The international

journal of bilingual education and bilingualism 0: 1-6.

113

Whiteley, Willfred

1969 Swahili: the rise of a national language. London: Barns and Noble books.

Woolard, Kathryn & Schieffelin, Bambi

1994 Language Ideology. Annual review of anthropology 23: 55-82.

Yahya-Othman, Saida

1997 Language and power in Tanzania. Duisburg: Gerhard-Mercator-Universität.

Yahya-Othman, Saida & Batibo, Herman

1966 The swinging pendulum: English in Tanzania 1940-1990. In Joshua A. Fishman &

Andrew W. Conrad & Alma Rubal-Lopez (eds.) Post-imperial English: status change

in former British and American colonies: 373-400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

114

Appendix 1: Transcriptions classroom interaction

Transcript symbols:

// Final intonation

/ Falling intonation

? Rising intonation, not necessarily a question

= Contiguous utterances (latching)

: Sound stretch

[] Speaker's utterance is overlapped by the talk of another speaker

( number ) Numbers in parentheses indicate silence, represented in tenths of a second

underline Emphasis

(( text )) Transcriber’s remarks and description of events

(xxx) Unintelligible segment. Each ‘x’ represents one syllable.

(xxx number) Unintelligible segment. The number indicates the amount of seconds the unintelligible segment lasts.

((l) text) The utterance is markedly loud.

((s) text) The utterance is markedly soft.

s: all students

s+: more than 5 students

s-: less than 5students

t: teacher

s0: unidentified student

s1: 1st identified student

s2: 2nd identified student

s3: 3rd identified student

s4: 4th identified student

....

((NOTE: the following transcriptions only include excerpts that were used and referred to in this dissertation. The transcriptions provide their surrounding interactional context))

115

Appendix 1A: Transcription 1

Location: Zanaki Secondary School, Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)

Date: July 22 2008

Data set: Z.1.A.

Class: Form 1

Subject: Social studies: gender mainstreaming and social cultural practices

1. t: the concept of (2) social (2) social cultural (3) practices (3,5) affecting women// (10)

2. they’re social cultural euh practises which affect women in our? (1) so[ciety]//

3. s-: [society]//

4. t: now because the first we have to know what social cultural practises mean/

5. then we are going to discuss/

6. =because they are things which euh occur in just occur in our euh everyday lives

7. herefore we’ll have a good class euh discussion//

8. now what is it social cultural practises?

((Excerpt 4))

9. t:: these are those euh different practices wich oppress they’re results they’re euh just results of our euh

10. and traditions euh and cultural things that we do//

11. but which in one way or another they do oppress the position of what?

12. the position of? ((1,5) students don’t respond))

13. women//

14. they oppress// (2,5) they are oppressing the position of women// but we have to know we have to be so euh

15. euh aware in those social cultural practices/ they are just social practices/ which affect which oppress women/ not men//

16. oppress what? ((1,5) students don’t respond)

17. women//

18. tumeelewana? ((1,5) students don’t respond)

do we understand each other?

19. tunapozungunzia social cultural practices

when we talk about

20. ni ni inakuwa tu nie euh yaani mazoea ambayo (4)

they are just just practices that

21. au au mambo ambayo yanayomkandamiza?(0,5) [mwanamke]

or or things that oppress women things that oppress a woman

22. s: [mwanamke]

a woman

23. t: sio swala la wanaume kuwakandamiza?(0,5) [wanawake]//

but, it is not about man who oppress ((who?)) women

24. s: [wanawake]

women

25. t: is that clear? (0,5)

26. s: ((l) yes )

27. t: =yaani hapo (xxxxx) (xxx)

116

therefore

28. these social cultural practices/ are not those which favour men againsti? (1) [women]//

29. s-: [women]//

30. t: but they’re just practices which just affecti? (1) women (1) it’s not that they are practiced by men/

31. is that clear?

32. s-: yes

33. t: =but justi euh they’re just practice practices which come euh from our culture traditions and everything

experience/ but they do

34. affect what? (1)

35. s-: ((l) woman)//

36. t: woman//

((Excerpt 19a))

38. t: now/ what are this euh social cultural practices affecting women (xxxxx) (xxxx) euh (xxx) (xxx)/

39. of course you can even say it from euh you’re your own euh an example from our own family/because we have

40. some euh other things that of course if you try to analyse them you can see that they are oppressing? (2)

the women position/ they are affecting you (3) (xxxx) (xx) (xxxxxxx) because they are from your home// (3)

42. your brother tells you=

43. =((change in voice) he:y khadija nenda ukalete maji kachote maji khadija pika)

khadija, go and bring water, fetch water. khadija cook

44. is that clear?

45. s1: yes

46. t: =((change in voice) khadidja pika. khadidja osha vyombo)

khadidja cook. khadidja wash the dishes.

47. t: and they are doing them together with the man /

48. = is it? but while they are doing all those things your man is there sits here euh watch watching tv and that (xxxxx)

49. is it clear?

50 s+: ((laughing) yes

51. t: now/ those are practices/ but you see how? they affect for instance you younger brother when you’re

52. cooking yeye anasoma//

he’s reading

53. is that clear?

54. s-: ((s) yes)

55. t: ((s)lakini it’s not kwamba kaka yako ndiyo anagombania wewe upike)

but as if you’re brother really wants you to cook.

56. si ndiyo? (0,5)

isn’t it so?

57. =but you just see even from your own thinking that cooking is my duty/

58. s1: =yes

59. t: =you don’t think that brother should cook so to help each others so he can finish all his business euh and

60 you go to do studies/ you see?

61. s1: [((s) yes)]

62. t: =[those] social cultural practices those are that//

63. now/ what other social cultural practices (xx) (xxxxxxx)

117

64. give us social cultural practices that affect affect women/ in the society (3) (xxxxxx) (8)

65. mhm (4) there are so many, so: many? affecting women economically/ affecting women euh euh socially/

66. and some of them are affecting women even euh biologically= that euh they affect the health of women//

66. what are they? (7) what are they? (8)

67. hey students/ (16)

68. mm

69. ju:st one (xxxxx) (6) ((s) mm yes) ((teacher stands in front and looks at s1 who’s sitting in front as well))

70. s1: (xxxx 23)

71. t: euh so here wha what you’re trying to say is that euh euh there’s a a big part from domestic euh jo:bs and

72. euh other things which a are left to women/ is it?

73: s1: yes

74. t: mmm that’s one/ (xxxxxxx)/ let’s take this one euh which is a very serious issue going on now/

75. the question of euh fgm/

76. the question of what? (1)

77. s+: fgm

78. t: =fgm that’s female genital? (1) [mutilation] //

79. s-: ((s)[mutilation])

80. t: female genital? (1) [mutilation]//

81. s-: [mutilation]

((Excerpt 18))

83. t: =what is female genital mutilation? (1,5)

84. because it is euh (2) it’s a custom in some tribes/ in some tribes/ in some african? (1) tribes//

85. but it has a very euh effect to women health//

86. what is it? what is it and give me euh an example of euh tribes that still practism this fgm/

87. female genital mutilation// (4)

88. what is it? (3)

89. ((teacher raises his voice)) just explain the way you know it the way you think euh (3) it’s correct (3)/ fgm

90. (5) what’s euh what’s fgm ?(6)

91. ((s) apa mnaniambia hamjui) female genital mutilation/ (2) heu? (2)

are you telling me here that you don’t know what

92. s-: ((s)ndiyo)

93. t: hivi kinachojadioiwa sana sana sana kwenye radio sasa hivi na wana siasa vyombo vya habari/

what is discussed so much, so much, so much in radios right now with politicians, all /sources of information

94. ((looks at s) =a lot of noise about fgm (1,5) yet you say you don’t know what fgm is//

95. uhu ((looks at s2)) (1,5) what is it?

96. s2: in kiswahili

97. s: ((laughter))

98. t: ah yes yes yes you want kiswahili that’s’ your mother language your mother tongue/

99. ((s) ah yes speak in kiswahili)//

100. s2: ukeketaji

mutilation.

101. t: what?

102. s2: ukeketaji

mutilation.

118

103. t: (writes it on the blackboard) ukeke?

104. s-: taji

105. t: ((s) huu ukeketaji ni kitu gani?)

what exactly is this mutilation?

106. s: = ((laughter) (7))

107. T: what is ukeketaji? (3)

mutilation

108. what wewe ukeketaji ni nini?

you what is mutilation?

109. ni nini hasa kinachofanyika?

what exactly does it entail?

((teacher walks towards s2. other students start laughing))

110. ni nini? ni nini hasa? ni nini ? ey ni nini sasa?

what is it? what exactly is it? what is it? what is it now?

111. mtu anaweza kukwambia mango’s

someone can ask you what is mango’s,

112. then you say mango is maembe/ and then you say maembe is mango/

mango’s mango’s

113. s: [((laugh))]

114. t: [that’s is not ] the information asked, aah (3) so (xxxx (10))

115. s3: msamiati//

116. t: msamiati// badu hujanieleza ni kitu gani// (4)

vocabulary. still you haven’t told me what it is.

117. kwa sababu kabla hatujajua kwamba maana ya ukeketaji ni nini/ hatuwezi tukaenda kuangalia

because unless we establish what mutilation is, then we can learn how/then we can’t establish

118. how euh oppressive it is to? (1) to women//

119. kama hatujajua kitu chenyewe//

if we don’t know what exactly that thing is.

120. =si ndiyo?

isn’t it so?

121. s: ndiyo/hapana

yes/no

122. t: ha?

123. tunaweza tukajua madhara yake wakati hatujui kitu chenyewe ni nini?

can we know its effects while we don’t know exactly what the thing is?

124. how can you? (1) know// (3)

125. s3: ((s) ukeketaji is total or partial removal of the clitoris)

mutilation

126. t: ((goes to the blackboard)) mhm/ you say it’s total?

127. s3: or partial

128. t: total? or partial/ partial removal/ (1,5) of what?

129. s4: clitoris

130. t: of ?

131. s-: clitoris

119

132. t: cristle cri cristle clistoris (5) ((teacher writes the word ‘clitoris’on the blackboard))

133. sawa// (1)

ok.

134. that some people remove that essential part of euh women reproductive organ//

135. mm? is that clear?

136. s+: yes//

((t: goes to the blackboard to draw and describe the parts of the female reproductive organ))

((Excerpt 6))

137. t: ((points to a drawing))this is clito clitoris and the the la la labia labia majora and euh labia)

138. hee kwenye biology?

haven’t you read this in biology?

139 s: = ((laughter) ndiyo/ hapana

yes / no

140. t: hamjamsoma?

haven’t you read it?

141. s0: =eehe/ hatujajifunza (5)

we haven’t done it

142. t: yes, o of course/ euh what we want to discuss here is euh that fe female genital mutilation//

143. now/ euh different societies (2) of course this one (goes back to his drawing) is practised in different societies//

144. yes for instance you can see the masaai the wakurya wagogo: they’re in tanzania/ is that clear? (0,5 )

145. s: ((l) yes)

146. t: (xxxxxxx) now/ some tribes do remove just clistoris ((points at the drawing)) well/ but some tribes are doing

147 it euh euh in a very extreme way/

148. they remove euh labia (1) minora minora/ for example the wasomalia/ there are doing some tribes in tanz in

somalia remove

149. labia minora you see?

150. now/ what remains there what remains there is just a? a scar is that clear? just a? (1) a scar//

151. and that euh if for instance they remove the labia euh minora euh what remains there is euh just a very big scar// (4)

152. ((s) now) that is (x) ebu fikiria watu wanaondosha

can you imagine/think about people removing

153. = that euhm that soft skin that cover the euh reproductive organ of a women/

154. wanakata kabisa wanakata wanakata tumeelewana?

they cut completely, they cut, they cut, have we understood each other?

((students laugh))

155. kinachobaki ni nini?

what remains is?

156. s3: ((s) scar)//

157. t: si ndiyo?

isn’t it so?

158. s+: yes

159. t: kinachobaki ni nini?

160. what remains is what?

161. [ni] kovu//

120

162. kama wame remove this euh euh soft part skin sometimes

if they

163. here ((shows on the blackboard)) what remains is just a? kovu//

scar

164. tumeelewana?

have we understood each other?

165. s+: ndiyo/yes

yes

166. t: haya makabila ni ya tanzania bado yana remove this scar/

these tribes are from they still

167. bado yana remove this/

they still

168. lakini ina effects yako/ sawa bwana/ ina effecti? (1)

but it has its effects, ok children? it has effects

169. ina effect yake kubwa sana kwenye tendo ka ndoa au (xx) clitoris bado ina effect kubwa sana//

it has big/major effects in performing sex act or (xx) clitoris still has big/major effects.

170. but it’s just part of euh euh euh euh our (1.5) culture but it it oppress? a women//

171. now (xxxxxx)/

172. what are the effects of this? (1) what are the effects (1)? what are the effects of fgm/

173. what are the effects of fgm?

174. now/ i want you (1) to write (1,5) the effects of fgm

175. meaning psychological (3) what health complication?

176. health? (1) [complication] /

177. s-: complication] /

178. health complication zinazojitokeza euh kutokana na (1) fgm/ that may rise as the result of

179. =sawa?

ok?

180. ((s) matatizo athari yanayojitokeza kutokana na?) f (1) [gm] //

problems/effects that may rise as a result of?

181. s-: [gm]//

182. t: euh (2) psychological (1.5) psy ? (1) chological/ psychological effect/

183. zinazotokana na? fgm// as a result of ?

184. je hawa kina mama ambao wame undergo this euh (2) female genital mutilation wanapata psychological

what kind of psychological effect do women who undergo experience

185. effect zipi/ is that clear? ((students don’t respond))

186. wanapata psychological effectsi? (1)

they experience

187. s: zipi//

which.

188. t: zipi//

which.

189. ok kwa hijo baada ya kujitambua//

ok therefore afterwards they realise.

190. baada ya ku?

121

afterwards they?

191. s: jitambua//

realise.

192 t: =jitambua//

realise.

193. t: kujitambua kwamba euh kilichofanywa kwao sio?

therefore afterwards, they realise what has been done to them is not?

194. s: kizuri/

good.

195. t: sawa/ is that clear? (0,5)

ok

196. i happened to be in some of euh the masaai tribes masaais tribe euh (xxxxx 8)

197. kwa sababsu kulikuwa na kitu kama hicho/

because there was something like that

((Excerpt 19b))

198. womens are nothing// (2) ((meaning: to the masaai, women are nothing if they’re not circumcised))

199. (( change in voice) na wewe hujafanyiwa tohara / )

You you. haven’t undergone a circumcision?

200. ((change in voice) hujafanyiwa? (1) [tohara] / )

you haven’t undergone a circumcision?

201. S-: ((l) [tohara] )

circumcision

202. so you are not a human/

203 is that clear?

204. S+: ((l)yes)

205. T: =so you are not a? (1)

206. S+: ((l)human//)

207. t: human//

207. t: ((change in voice) = kumbe hujafanyiwa tohara? aah ungekaa kimya tu (xxx))

so you’re not circumsed? you should keep quiet.

208. or whatever because they tend to those women tend to isolate those womens who have not undergone female genital mutilation/

209. so today to them before they came aware of the effects of fgm they just think that fgm is something very

good something very euh that one can be proud of//

211. all right? do you think it is it’s good?

212. s+: =no/no

213. t: huh do you think it’s good?

214. s+: =no/

215. t: that sasa there (1) ((change in voice) hata hujafanyia hii kitu hufai kutembea na sisi )

that now, if you haven’t done this thing you can’t qualify to go out with us.

216. is that clear?

217. ((change in voice) =hufai kutembea na sisi lakini sasa (xxxxx) )

you’re not qualified to go out with us, but now (xxxxx)

218. psychological? (0,5) euh effects (xxx) euh inayotokana/

122

psychological effects are the results,

219. inayotokana na na

result of of

220. s4: ((s) fgm)

221. t: fgm

222. is that clear?

223. = ((s) inayotokana na fgm//)

result of

224. pia (4) you also have to write on euh (1) social (1) social? (1) effects social effects/

also

225. pia mjaribu kuandika kwamba kijamii kijamii//

also you should try to write that socially socially

.Appendix 1B: Transcription 2


Date: July 22 2008

Data set: Z.1.A.& Z.2.A.

Class: Form 6

Subject: Economics: economic integration

1. t: examples of economic integration

2. now the best example we are going to have in this topic is east african community

3. the east african community is the best example of how to know the meaning of economic integration

4. now let us proceed with deepening example of economic integration

5. now let us start with east african community east african community is a regional in is a regional agreement

6. or organisation east african community is a regional agreement or organisation of kenya, uganda and

7. tanzania east african community is a community formed by three countries tanzania, kenya and uganda

8. now the east african community heads of states

9. the east african community heads of states signed the treaty for the establishment of east african

10. community in arusha on 30th november on 30th november 1999

11. so heads of states of tanzania, uganda and kenya signed the treaty for establishment of this community on

12. 30th november 1999

13. now (xxx) let us go to the goals or objectives of east african community

14. what are the main goals of forming east african community

15. now the first objective or goal of establishing this community is promotion of sustainable growth

16. the main objective of establishing this community is promoting of the sustainable growth and equitable

17. development of the regions including promotion of sustainable growth and equitable development of the

18. region including rational utilisationof regional natural resources and protection of the environment those

19. form the main objectives of establishment of this promoting, sustainable growth and equitable development

20. of the regional including rational utilisation of regional natural resources and protection of the environment

21. you know that our countries now a days are struggling by different ways

22. so by having east african community the community can have the ways of how to protect the enviroment

23. have you heard the point?

123

24. s: yes

25. t: the second objective

26 the second objective of this community is enhancement and strengthening of participation of the private

27. sector enhancement and strengthening of participation of the private sector

28. so private sector can participate fully so as to achieve those goals

29. another one is mainstreaming of gender in all is problems

30. t: what are the main problems faced by east african community? (1)

31. what are they? (2)

33. what are the problems faced by east african community?

34. =yes? no? (2)

35. what are the problems faced by east african community?(1)

36. what are they?(1)

37. =hakuna matatizo ambayo yanazikumba hizi nchi? matatizo gani?

38. are there any problems that these countries are facing? what are the problems

39. so/ what are the problems faced by east african community? ((looks at s1 who raises her hand) Yes?) (0.5)

40. s1: lack of land?

41. t: lack of lands is a problem//

42. another problem?

43. ((s2 raises her hand)) ((looking at s2) yes?)

44. s2: different ideologies//

45. t: different ideologies can you explain

46. how?

47. s2: for example tanzania we were socia socialist socialist majority while kenya are capitalist

48. t: how is that a problem

49. mm?

50. yes or no

51: s+ yes

52. t: another problem?

53. yes?

54. s3: poor transports and communication systems

55. t: poor transports and

56. t: communication systems

57. t: another problem?

58. you know that in order to establish trade we need to have roads, communication system, etcetera

59. another problem?

60. yes?

61. another problem is depend level of development

62. depend level of?

63. t/s+ development

64. t: another problem is poor communication

65. by poor communication it means roads, transports euh roads, communication systems

66. now these countries face this problem because of poor roads in some areas

67. also some areas have no communication system etcetera

124

68. another one is administrative problem

69. administrative?

70. t/s: problem

71. s3: madam?

72. t: yes

73. s4: i don’t i don’t understand difference i don’t know what difference

74. t: difference?

75. s4: in ideology

76. t: difference in ideology

77. now what is ideology?

78. what is it?

79. our visitor can you explain to us ideology?

80. what do you understand by ideology?

81. v: euhm it’s the way people think about something

82. that’s an ideology

83. t: in tanzania we have our own thinking different from? kenya

84. s: kenya

85. t: or?

86. t/s: uganda

87. t: thank you very much (to visitor)

88 v: ((laughs))

89. t: that is ideology/

90. the way we we we see something//

91. tanzania naturally hu our ideology comes from socialist/

92. is it? (0.5)

93. s: ((l)yes)

94. t: ee?

95. t: sisi tunaamini watu wote ni sawa, mali yote ni yakwete si ndiyo

we believe everybody is equal, the wealth is for everybody (we share), is that right?

96. s: ((l)yes)

97. t: na wakenya ni makapitalisti kwa hiyo wanafikiria kwamba ile ile individual ownership of things.

and kenyans are capitalists therefore they think o of

98. have you got the point?

99. s: =((l)yes)

100. t: so we have individualism and? (1)

101. and what? (1)

102. socialist ownership

103. clear?

104. s: =yes

105. t: so that’s all concerning problems

106. another question concerning this?

107. t: now the eu was establishti under ro:me treat/

108. european union was establisti under rome treat/

109. and since there has been enlarged to include many countries in they said in the treaty of rome//

125

110. so the main thing here is to know this union was formed under the rome? treaty//

111. you know what is the rome treat? (1)

112. rome treaty is what? (1)

113. mkataba wa wapi? (0.5)

agreement of where?

114. s-: wa rome//

of rome

115. t: si mnasikia kwenye historia mlisoma huko o-level na nini/ si ndiyo eeh?

you heard in history you have learned in ordinary level education etc, is that right?

116. kwa hiyo ule mkataba nchi nyingi zikawa zimeingia na kuanzia hapo nchi nyingi zikawa zinaendelea kuingia.

therefore, in that agreement many countries joined and after that many countries kept joining

117. so let us go to the main objective of european union

118. hakuna kitu kingine saana cha kuangalia tunachotaka kuona je mkataba huu ulipata malengo gani?

there is nothing else to look at except we want to know the objectives of this agreement?

119. now let us go to the objectives of european union//

120. the first objective of european union is elimination of custom duties and port charges

121. elimination of custom duties and port charges

122. in the import and export of goods and services between member states

123. elimination of custom duties and import taxes in the import and export of goods and services between

124. member states that is the first objective

125. the second one is the establishment of a common custom tariff and commercial policies towards non-

126. member countriesthe establishment of a common custom tariff and commercial policies towards non-

127. member countries that is the second objective

128. i think you remember about the forms or types of economic integration

129. if i say that the first form is free?

130. s: trade

131. t: free trade area free trade area

132. the second one is what?

133. s:: custom union

134. t: custom union

135. another one?

136. t: the third on is common market

137. you remember?

138. s: yes

139. t: common market

140. another one?

141. s-: ((mumbling))

142. t: number four

143. s5: economic union

144. t: economic?

145. s5: (xxx)

.....

170. t:: what are other areas of cooperation between countries/ apart from economic integration? (1)

126

169. : the areas of cooperation//

170. tanzania tunashirikiana wapi na kenya na uganda. si ndiyo swali langu?

in which area does tanzania cooperate with kenya and uganda? was that not my question?

171. s+: =yes

172. t:: areas of cooperation? ((students have understood now, a student s6 raises her hand))

173. yes ((points to the student, s6))

174. s6: ((s)(xxx))

175. t:: ok/ she say that we cooperate in trade//

176. yes or no?

177. s: yes//

178. t:: ee umoja

yes union

179. another area?

((Excerpt 13))

180. t east african community cooperate in trade/ mm?

181. ((looks at s7, who raises her hand ,and nods yes))]

182. s7: viwanja ((S)vya ndege)

infrastructures of airport

183. t: ((nods no) what?(1))

184. s7: infrastructures?

185. t: ((nods yes) infrastructure/)

186. engineering/ tuwe na viwanja vya ndege kila nchi

every country has to have an airport

187. railway barabara

roads

188. any other area?

189. ((points to s8) yes?))

190. s8: environmental management//

191. t: environmental?

192. s8 management//

193. t: ee

194. ushirikiano katika mambo ya mazingira, si ndiyo?

cooperation in environmental matters, isn’t that right?

((Excerpt 10))

195. t: sovereign states establisht its cooperation/

196. kwa hiyo tukiangalia economic integration inaweza ikatofautishwa na economic cooperation

therefore, if we look at it can be distinguished from

197. zile nchi ambazo ni huru

those countries that are independent

198. lakini ukiangalia economic integration

but if you look at

199. lazima zile nchi ziwe na mahusiano katika maswala ya kiuchumi na zinataka kupata nini

those countries must have relations in economic issues and establish what they want to gain

201. si ndiyo?

127

is that right?

202. s-: ((s)yes//)

203. t: mmesoma kwenye vitabu (xxx)

you have read in books

204. halafu (xxx)

then

205. so that is the end of this topic eu this lesson

...

Appendicx 1C: Transcription 3


Date: July 23 2008

Data set: Z.3.B.

Class: Form 2

Subject: History: the Oman Arabs

1. t: why did the arabs come to the east coast of africa?

2. euh they say they came for one thing that is trading

3. any other things they can came for? (1,5)

4. wale waarabu wengine waliokuja?

those are the arabs who came

5. =what did you say they came for? (1.5)

6. s: ((no answer))

7. t:: during those early contacts

8. all right maybe that is the major reason

9. yes ((points to a student s2))?

10. s2: they they come to introduce islamic religion

11. t: all right that was another reason that as they trading they also wanted to the african the east african people

12. to know about their religion and to become muslims and this would make them of course

13. euhm traders muslims because they will be on the same i mean even culture would be inherited

14. so now we are going to see how they came

15. now in oman they were rulers and it was during the ruler of someone who was known as euh seyyid said

16. i suppose you’ve heard about this man

17. now who is fifteen years in this class?

18. anybody who is fifteen years old?

19. s1: me

20. t: you?

21. anybody else?

22. no one?

23. all right we take that seyyid said was fifteen years of age when he became the ruler of oman in

24. eighteen zero six he was

25. fifteen years old so you can see how young he was//

26. s+: ((shouting) six)

128

27. t: =eee:

28. nyinyi ndiyo mnaotakiwa mfanye kazi

you young people are the once supposed to work

29. lakini sasa mnapiga makelele//

but now you’re making noises

39. so/ you can see how sma:ll he was but he became the ruler of? (0.5) oman//

40. now when he became the ruler of oman he is the one who brought many changes and those changes

41. included east africa of course euhm he did not come at once because he had the euh problems at home

42. and so on they where we can say clans you have read about clans he was of this type of (xxx)but we can

43. call it a clan so that it can be easy for you to know so he was from this clan which became now the ruling

44. clan and so before he came to east africa first he became to make things euh to bring euh calm and peace

45. in this country and strengthen the position and then he come to east africa.

46. so he that coming from the very beginning. but who who were here in in east africa who represented oman.

47. there were some people here

48. again we can say there was another clan who helped to govern or to rule for oman/ and this were people

49. known as mashuhri arabs this were from oman to mm?

50. wawakilishi//

representative

51. just as we here from euhm in zanzibar likaingia baraza la nani? (0.5)

the beginning of cabinet of who?

52. t: [wawakilishi//]

representatives

53. s: [wawakilishi ]

representative

54. t: so/ here they were the mashuhuri family or clan who represented oman in ruling the coast of east

55. africa// now /this had come to visit euh area lo:ng lo:ng time ago before even seyyid said became the ruler of oman/

56. so/ once seyyid said beca:me to be the ruler they were there//

57. and because they had stayed there for long time they decided to disobey the rulers of oman//

58. and so? they declared themselves the rulers of the east african coast//

59. wakaasi/ wakafanya nini?

they betrayed what did they do?

60. t: wakaasi//

they betrayed

61. s: wakaasi

they betrayed

62. t: wakajitangazia kwamba wao ndiyo nani? (0.5)

they announced that they were who?

63. t: watawala//

leaders

64. t: so that is the situation which seyyid said found along the coast . and so he had to deal with them

65 so he started dealing with them before he could declare himself euhm the ruler of east africa

66. first he had to put these

67. masuhuri arabs under his control instead of themselves saying we are rulers of east africa

129

68. he wanted to make them realise that he seyyid seyyid said was the ruler of oman and the east coast of east africa.

69. and so ?he started sending his soldiers to come and fight the mashuhuri/

70. who were/ (1) they were centred at? (1) mombasa//

71. this is the place from where they controlled the other parts on the coast//

71. makao yao makuu yalikuwa wapi?(0.5)

their headquarter is where?

72. t: [mombasa//]

73. s: [mombasa//]

74. t: from there now they controlled other areas//

75. now euhm actually he started from the years like eighteen i suppose as early as eighteen thirteen

76. sometimes eighteen seventeen eighteen twenty two eighteen thirty seven

77. all those years he was sending soldiers to come and fight the mashuhuri but they could defeat them and

78. after euh euh short time they again declared that they are independent they are not willing to obey the ruler

79. of oman and they started leading their ordinary life’s again

80. so it was not until this year it of course eighteen thirty seven when euh during this time seyyid said had

81. made friends with the british and so in one way or another they helped him euh get rid of the oman arabs i

82. mean the masuhuri arabs so in eighteen thirty seven seyyid said was able to defeat all mashuhuri at

83. mombasa at mombasa there there was a port i suppose you’ve learned about it when you are talking about portugese

84. what is the port called? do you remember? what is is the name of the big port that was build by the portugese?

85. what is it’s name?

86. s2: port jesus

87. t: port jesus

88. so at this time the mashiuhuri had taken time to go in that port and they were defeated there some of them

89. were killed right in there and others were send back to oman. euh euh i mean to oman

90. and so from that time on euh seyyid said became the ruler not of only oman but also of the coast of east ? africa

91. s-: ((s) east africa)

92. t: now in order to make sure that thing were going rightly for him he had plans for east africa

93. and so form eighteen eighteen forty. seyyid said moved his capital from musqat

94. musqat is the capital of where?

95. t: oman

96. s oman

97. t: so he is moving his capital from there and he brings it to zanzibar

98. now we we can just imagine we have our capital there in dodoma it used to be in dar es salaam but now we have

99. moved our capital from here to dodoma. and we have done that because dodoma is about the centre of the country

100. now can you think why seyyid said should move his capital from his own country to another country?

101. what was there? (1) anyone? (1.5) mmm?

102. kujituma ni kama amejitoa muhanga/ si ndiyo?

he has given all he has isn’t that right

103. s-: ndiyo//

yes

130

104. t: unaacha nchi yako ili unapeleka makao makuu kwenye nchi ya kingeni

you left your country so as to bring headquarters to the foreighn country

105. sasa wewe unafikiri sababu zipi zilimfanya afanye tendo kubwa kama hilo

now you think what reasons made him to make such a big decision

106. anybody knows why? (1) anybody?(1) haya marudio haya darasa la tano la sita

these are revisions from standard five-six

107. you have learned about euh seyyid said moved his capital from musqat//

109. why should he move his capital from there all the way from oman to earst africa?

110. anybody thinking of anything?

111. ((looks at s3) are you putting your hand up or not?)

112. s3: =no//

113. t: =no//

114. all right lets go.well first you have told me that the arabs wanted trade and that was the big reason.

115. because seyyid said wanted to have an empire a trading empire that is to have a big area from where he

116. could control trade and this would be the east african trade and also the indian ocean trade

117. so he thought that if he came to live around the coast of east africa he can control better that trade

118. you know everybody wants to come trade where there’s good trade and here there was gold there was ivory

119. there was slaves and other things from east africa coast. these things who are needed by many people

120. and if you are living far away from there then other can take it. so he wanted to come her and control that

121. trade that was the first thing which he wanted to do. so if he came to live in east africa so that he can control

122. trade he can keep other people away and he could keep for himself. so that was one the first reason

123. he wanted to control the east african trade. so then after he had come to east africa what did he see about

124. zanzibar itself because you can not just go to certain place euh which is maybe dangerous which i don’t

125. know what maybe there is even famine there is drugs and so on

126. so besides thinking that he might control the east african trade they were other good things which he saw in

127. zanzibar you know those things?

128. what did he see in zanzibar?

129. are you putting up your hand?

130. no?

131. anyone?

132. all right. any things that he saw in there was that zanzibar itself had good climate a better climate than that

133. one which is found where?

134. in oman

135. oman is a hot place there some points a dry on, so euhm here he found that the climate was cool fertile

136. and so he wanted to stay there and live there so in there that was another thing which found in zanzibar

137. that even if he moves to zanzibar it will be a better place for him than his own place in oman

138. and this attracted him to come to zanzibar. and there was another thing that was good for zanzibar

139. as i said you cannot go to a place which is not safe which is not secure so he found that we use this name strategic

140. that this place he can have protection it was a place where protection was is where euh he could be safe from other

141. invasions or attacks from other enemies whether it was from the mainland of the east african coast or from other

142. places euh he saw it would be safe in here. euh a lot euh better then maybe in oman if he was there

143. so it was of course this place strategic,was safer for him and therefore he choose to euh live in there

131

144. and? Again? Euhm (2) zanzibar was euh had a bi:g harbour/ and because he wanted to trade/

145 therefore he that bi:g ships could come in there in? (1) zanzibar//

146. and zanzibar can become a big market for other countries to come//

147. kwa hiyo wafanya biashara wa kutoka nchi mbalimbali wangeweza kuja kupata vito kutoka wapi? (0.5)

therefore business people from different countries could be able to come to get things from where?

148. s: ((l)zanzibar//)

149. t: =zanzibar

150. t: kwa sababu bandari ya zanzibar ilikuwa nzuri ambayo inaweza kuruhusu meli za kila ukubwa

because the zanzibar harbour was the best and able to allow( accommodate) all sizes of ships

151. kufanya nini? (1)

to do what?

152. t: kutia nanga//

shipping

153. s: =kutia nanga//

shipping

154. t: so? then that was another thing which he wanted from? (0.5) zanzibar//

155. and of course because his main trade was euhm was slaves euh not main but one of them were slaves and

156. the end of the caravans or the roots from the interior area ends bagamoyo now if bagamoyo is very near to

157. zanzibar so he saw that he could get the slaves from zanz i mean that from bagamoyo to zanzibar

158. and there other nations like the french and the british like the dutch they come and buy slaves

159. and so this again portrayed atlantic to come to zanzibar so those were reasons the main one why euh seyyid said

160. choose to come to east africa then make his capital stay there in oman one i can say that because he

161. wanted to take control of the trade both from mainland from the east africa coast and the trade in the indian ocean

162. then i have said that this place zanzibar can be good climate which attracted him he saw that he can have good life

163. better life that if he was there in in oman. and then i have said that zanzibar could become the centre of

164. trade big market for other countries other regions to come there

165. and zanzibar was a place where euhm he could get secure euh security or safety from other enemies from

166. mainland or from the ocean or whatever and because of that he choose to come to?

167. zanzibar

168. s: zanzibar

169. t: right?

170. s+: yes

171. t: all right then we have said because the oman arabs were they were arabs from oman why they came to the

172. east coast of euhm east africa and now why euh seyyid said and moved his capital from there

173. now i suppose you talked about the effects of the coming or the impact of the coming of the arabs

174. now i suppose you can also tell me if the oman arabs came to the east african coast

175. what do you think were the effects what was the impact of their coming? anyone?

176. s4: i’ll try

177. t: yes

178. s4: interaction of different culture

179. t: all right we can say that euhm that they mixed up i suppose you are talking about interaction so they mixed

180. up with the people the swahili peo i mean the arab people or the swahili people and so we get culture and

132

181. the way of dressing and many other things buildings and so on

182. any other things?

183. some people are not trying, or you trying (xxx6)

184. what you can get from a foreign people coming to another area? what can you say?

185 . yes?

186. s5: development of slavery trade

187. t: ok development of what?

188. slavery trade

189. s6: slavery

190. t: i have said that seyyid said was a trader not a ruler just as simple trader

191. so during his rule around the east coast there was development of slave trade

192. and you know there are many effect from slave trade. ok so that is one thing

193. are there any other things?

194. yes?

195.. s6: i will try

196 t: yes go on ((s6 stands up))

197. s6: growth of growth former city states on the coast

198. t: all right i suppose euhm one of the effects of the portuguese rule on the coast

199. i suppose is that there was decline of the city states

200 many city states they became poor because euhm there was no flow of trade and so now when seyyid said

201. euh came to control or to rule the euh east african coast there was growth of euhm city states coastal towns

202. like kilwa like like mombasa like euh pemba and so on all those euh towns around the coast now it was the

203. time to grow because these towns depended on trade. now when there was a cut of of that trade then they

204. became poor and so they could not grow

205. but now when seyyid said came to the coast they started again that trade and therefore these towns were

206. becoming rich and therefore the are growing now

207. any other things you can give or problems? euh? yes?

208. s7: depopulation

209. t: ooo because of slave trade. euhm but there (xxxxx) was that type of trade but along the coast here actually

210. euhm it was no ttrue for that but of course yes in the euh interior or mainland of euh east africa

211. yes?

212. s8: introduction of new arts and craft//

213. t: yes/ introduction of new art and cra crafts//

214. remember they were stone buildings like the when you have over there in zanzibar

215. you find there is some arts which is

216. brought by the o:man arabs that is for example euhm their doors

217. =kuna nakshi za aina yake kule

there are decorations that are one of a kind

218. labda labda masanduku vitanda

maybe, maybe suitcases, beds

219. and what more even the way of building so this was a art which was brought during this period//

220. mhm? I saw another hand, ((lookst at s9) yes?)

133

((Excerpt 3))

221. s9: kiswahili culture?

222. t: yes we can say at this time because there were many traders going even into the interior when they were euhm looking for (0.5)

223. ivory for slaves /therefore even some the kiswahili language and kiswahili culture went all the way into the mainland of east africa//

224. and others?

225. ((t looks at s10) yes )

226. s10: =spreading of islamic religion//

227. t: yes i suppose that we have said spread of islamic religions as the traders went in to the interior also they carried them/

228. euhm there euhm value of islamic religion

229. one of you said the same thing?

230. any other thing? yes?

231. s11: ((s)the exploitation of both natural and human resources)

232. t: what are you thinking what are those?

233. all right i don’t know what you think actually but maybe you can put in the other point that seyyid said

234. introduced new crops like what? what was that crop introduced by seyyi said? mhm

235. s12: cloves

236. t: cloves eee i don’t know whether they are coconuts or they were there but for euh sure cloves

237. were introduced by? seyyid said

238. s13: seyyid said

239. t: any other things?

240. yes?

241. s14: the extension of new technology

242. t: new technology

243. i suppose that’ll go together with the new crafts

244. yes they go together with that

245. well i suppose euhm those are some of the things with euh seyyid with the come of seyyid said euhm came

246. about.and maybe one of the things is we can say we have learned modes of production.

247. so during this time there were few of the lords the few of the lords along the coast so these few lords

248. exploited the native people for example i don’t know whether you’ve have these are native people

((writes on the blackboard))

249. wahadimu these were in unguja i suppose and there are watumbatu these aren in pemba

250. now we say that few of the few of lords usually make some other some other people for them produce for

261. them so when euhm the oman arabs setteled in zanzibar settled in pemba there they exploited the

261. wahadimu and watumbatu first they took their land and then made them to be slaves to work for them

262. produce for them so that was another euhm big effect which was brought about with the settlement of arabs

263. here or in zanzibar and i suppose we have come to the end of the oman arabs now who can tell me where

264. is oman? in which in which area do we find the omans?

265. s15: africa?

266. t: africa?

267. t: no where? where do we find oman? mmm you have just forgotten

268. well what’s that area known where?

269. s16: persia?

134

270. t: persia?

271. s: persia

272. t: persia ok persia well persia yes but what that euh section of the area known?

273. s17: saudi arabia

274 t: i told you where middle?

275. s+t: east

276. t: mm another body?

277. in which year did seyyid said become the ruler of oman?

278. s0: eighteen zero zero six

279. s0 zero sifuri six

zero

280. t: how old was he?

281. s+: fifteen years old

282. t: so you are you are ol old then he was, older than

283. t: he was?

284. s-: =((s)he was)

285. t: so you must work hard/ like muwake hadi

you work hard

286. nobody worked for him/ he did it himself// in fact he killed his cousin in order to become a ruler of oman//

287. that was of course their tradition so you should not be surprised about it euhm and so:on

288 can you tell me one reason which made seyyid said to come to zanzibar?

289. mm?

290. s18: he wanted to control the trade

291. t:: he wanted to control the trade in east? [africa]

204. s+: [africa]

205. t:: of course another reason?

206. mm? well?

207. who does know? you were just listening, now what was you listening for?

208. martina, what was it?

209. one other reason (xxxxxxx) you can say that

210. s: ((start laughing))

211. t:: ((mumbling) nani)

who?

212. s: (xxx5)

213. t: ooo

ok you know what is another reason?

214. s19: mazrui

215. t:: and who were the mazrui?

you can tell me the other reasons why seyyid said came to east africa

216. s20: to defeat the mazrui//

217. s: ((start laughing))

218. =now now? i suppose we go on with our notes to finish/ so on (1) otherwise you are going to laughmuch//

219. hao wenye mami domo wana maana gani?

135

those with big mouths what do they mean?

….

Appendix 1D: Transcription 4


Date: July 24 2008

Data set: Z.4.B.

Class: Form 3

Subject: History: the Oman Arabs

1. t: was that at this time/ that is in eighteen zero six/ a ruling clan which was called muzakeri came to

2. power// kumbuka tunasema zile koo kama tulivyoona kwenye clani organisation

remember we are talking about those clan as we have seen

3. kwamba ulikuwa ni utawala wa kiukoo

that the administration runs in clans/families

4. and then euhm they choose rulers from there//

5. so? from this and there was a man who was called? (0.5)[seyyid said]

6. s-: [seyyid said]

7. t: now who is fifteen years old here? now who is fifteen years old here?(1) anybody? (1) anyone?(1)

8. yes? (1.5)

9. mnaniongopea

you are lying to me

10. all right thank you

11. now when seyyid said came to power when he was? as a ruler he was fifteen years old

12. so now we can see how many of you can become rulers. you can not even control your own actions

13. you make noise you do this and you do that

14. but this seyyid said became the ruler of oman at the age of ? [fifteen] years.

15. s: [fifteen]

16. t: and nobody was controlling for him but himself who was makings things work out

17. so at that age he was just a boy but he became the ruler of oman. now what did he do?

18. first seyyid said came to make things euh secure for safty in his own area because of course there was

19. another euh ruling clan were was competing with this clan

20. if you that his enemies did not take control/ so/ it took him some years about eleven years befo:re he could

21. come to east? (0.5) africa// now/ when he was controlling things in oman/ there was a clan of other arabs

22. from there family who were called mazrui // these mazrui family was send to east africa to represent? (1)

23. kuwawakilisha nani? (1)

to represent who?

24. kuwakilisha utawala wa omani

to represent the administration of oman

25. so? they had come to (0.5) euh (0.5) the coast and euh (0.5) they cho:se to stay in or they made

26. mombasa their centre/ that is they came here even befo:re seyyid said and euh being made the ruler of oman many

27. many years ago// so they were they were governors ruling for the rulers of oman controlling the east

136

28. coast for the rulers of? (0.5) oman// but as time went on they declared themselves independent in the year euhm

29. (0.5) seventeen forty on// that is they said they’re not longer going to be controlled by the rulers of

30. oman// wakajitangazia uhuru wao wenyewe

they declared their own independence

31. but they are going to be a complete rulers sole rulers of the east african coast//

32. so/ they say next king ruler sometime be the ruler of oman and we mazrui here/ are going to be the rulers of

33. the east african? (0.5) coast//

34. so/ from then on the mazrui were made responsible to the king euh to the sultan of oman//

35. they were controlling the things by themselves// so now ?when seyyid said come in to power he wanted to

36. have control of both oman and along the east african coast// so he decided?

37. first of all/ of course to use his soldiers so that he can make these mazrui euh who were centered there in

38. mombasa to acknowledge or accept the rule rulers of oman// so he started as early as sometimes from

39. eighteen thirteen sending soldiers to come and take control of the mazrui// but

40. as soon as they left they again they did the same things? did not recognise the rulers and they went

41. ruling// kwa huyo mambo yakawa yanajirudia

42. t: herefore, things kept going in a cirkel

43. wakiletwa wakiwashinda wakiondoka they go home/ leading the same life//

if they brought if they defeat if they left

44. but on there were other years when seyyid said sent euhm what until eighteen thirty seven

45. and between there there were many years i mean years when he was sending soldiers to come and attack

46. these mazrui arabs make euhm them accept the rulers of oman. but it was not until the year eighteen thirty

47. seven that now seyyid saidattacked the mazrui and completely defeated them. this were i mean there is i

48. supposed during euhm the portugese. what port was built in mombasa? what is the name of that port which was built in mombasa?

49. s0: port jesus

50. t: port jesus

51. all right euhm as they were being attacked the mazrui and he i mean can go for euh for protection in that

52. port which had been build for the portugese so it was from there that they were captured and then they were

53. send back to oman so the others died and those who were left they were send back to oman

54 so now it means that seyyid said could now control the east coast. because the mazrui had been giving him

55. trouble were no longer there

56. so he decided after this triumph after the defeat of the marzui in eighteen thirty seven in eighteen forty

57. seyyid said decided he is going to move his capital from oman which was known as musqat

58. and he was going to make another town in east africa to be the capital of both the east african coast and

59. euh oman and this was going to be zanzibar

((Excerpt 5))

60. t: i suppose you know that we moved our capital from dar es salaam and we have moved

61. where? (0.5)

62. s: ((mumbling)) dodoma//

63. t: ((looking at s1 who comes in late ) wewe kaa huko huko nimashakuchoka / every day you are late

you better stay out i had enough of you

64. ((s1 looks surprised))

65. s1: not every day

66. t: mm sitaki mabishano nenda ukakae kwenye shedi huko. umezoea.

137

mm i don’t want argument go stay in the shadow. you are making it a habit

67. ((s1 moves towards teacher))

68. t: unanifuata wala sitaki every day you are late, why?

are you following me i don’t want

69. wote we are finishing things hakuna anaekaja kwa ndege wala helkopta

all of us no one came by airplane or helicopter

70. mimi nakuja kwa basi tena natoka bunju tena mzee

i come by bus besides i come from bunju besides i’m old

71. basi nikichelewa hata wewe utasema mwalimu kachelewa baada?

and if i’m late even you you will later/afterwards say the teacher is

72. s0: baadaye/

late

73. t: ok// (1) so euhm (0.5) that is what we did// now/ tell me why would you think it is a positive direction

74. someone to move out his own country to another country and establish is euh a capital there? (1)

75. to move out his own country to another country and establish is euh a capital there? (1,5)

76. what were the major reasons? (1.5)

77. maana unapohimisha mji wato mkuu ukapeleka kwenye nchi ya kigeni

it means/ therefore so when you move cour capital city to a foreign country

78. huoni kwamba ni ni hatari huyo maana yake kule ndiyo watu labda tunasema rais kachaguliwa

don’t you see that is a dangerous that means there we may say the president is elected

79. lakini anahamuru kwamba ahamishe dodoma kwenda zambia

but you authorise to move to

80. can you be complete? why? (1)

81. what were the reasons which made euhm seyyid said so bold to move his capital from zanzibar?

82. =i mean from musqat

83. to zanzibar?

84. yes ((points to s2))?

85. s2: ((s) because xxx)//

86. t: speak louder so that they can hear you//

87. s2: because in zanzibar there was a good soil and crops plantation//

88. t: right// she said that in zanzibar maybe compared to oman they have a good climate there were good soils/

89. and so seyyid said could grow coconuts could plant euh crops // (2)

90. well that is a reason//

91. any others you know?

92. s3: ((s)geographical position of zanzibar)

((Excerpt 7))

93. t: all right/ the geographical position of of zanzibar (0.5) zanzibar is an island.(0.5)zanzibar is an island/

94. and if you i mean you can i mean you can get protection? especially from rivals

95. for example if they they were any enemies/

96. from the mainland/ then you can easily see euhm people coming and he will know if they are good friends/

97. or they are enemies from what you can see from the boats or from the ships and so on//

98. if they are war ships or if they are ships coming from trade and so on

99. kwa hiyo aah kwamba kisiwa kile kilitoa ulinzi zaidi kwamba hawezi kushambuliwa kwa urahisi,

therefore, that highland offered extra protection that he can’t be invaded easily

138

100. anaweza akaona au akahisi kwamba kuna adui ambao, wanafanyage?(1) wanakuja

he is able to see or guess that there are enemies who are doing what? They're coming

101. wanafayage? (0,5)

who are doing what?

102. s: wanakuja/

they're coming

103. t: huwezi kwingia pale bila kuoneekana.

you can’t enter there without being seen. (0.5)

104. ok/ any other reasons which you think might have made seyyid said to move his capital?

103. you’ve given me those reasons but they’re still

104. (xxx) ni huyo yu ndiye (xxx)

is he/she the only who

105. ((to s4) yes stand up)

106. s4: good harbour//

107. t: all right she said that because if he wants to trade maybe he’ll will have will have ships or you have you

108. have boats which will have will have a place to store and stay there for some moment i mean i mean some

109. some time before you get your commodities or your goods and then you can go away

110. you say yes

111. so zanzibar is a good harbour which was deep enough for.ships to enter that is they can stop there and

112. while looking the goods wich they wanted to trade there here so providing a good harbour was an important

113. thing for seyyid said who wanted to be a businessman

114. any other reasons?

115. yes?

116. s5: availability

117. t: ok maybe that can what maybe euh i don’t know i have never been to oman so i don’t know what kind of

118. water is there so that was one thing which attracted euh seyyid said that he found that euhm the water

119. around zanzibar there is very fresh and so for him they can provide a a good life better than that one in oman maybe

120. s6: because you say that

121. t: euhm maybe that was one for entering the strategic in that euh zanzibar could be a second place but of

122. course oman is bigger and that i don’t know euh but well strategic and centering for trade because the trade

123. with the oman itself with the other european countries and countries in the far east and so on. euhm so it

124. could be that was one. any others?

125. we are finished?

126. you can find another one?

127. no?

128. all right so i suppose those are enough euh reasons but you have left the most important one

129. which i thought you couldhave mentioned the first

130. uhu?

131. s7: (xxx)

123. t: what?

124. s7: (xxx)

125. t: all right that is what i wanted to hear from you

126. because seyyid said had not moved to the east africa coast just to come and ru rule

139

127. he wanted to become a better trader. to control both the east african coastal trade and the indian ocean

128. trade now he could control it better if he was in zanzibar then being in musqat

129. and so that is the very big big reason why removed his euhm capital from musqat to zanzibar

130. all right so then euhm as i have said that at first he had problems with the east african coastal people

131. because he wanted to become independent for other people they wanted to control themselves euh the euh

132. trade but later on of course they put them under his control and so they accepted his control and they can

133. continue with the euh the kind of rule which euh seyyid said provided for them

134. so from there we have seen the reason why seyyid said wanted to come to the coast of east africa now

135. we need to see what are the effects what was the impact of the coming of this seyyid said to the coast of

136. east Africa// what were the results of his coming?

137. we can name many of them?

138. yes?

139. s7: introduction of the swahili language and arabic culture

140. t: well we cannot actually say introduction but we can way continuation

141. or rather at this time we say that kiswahili language instead of being confined to the coast it went beyond

142. the coast to the interior because there were now traders who where going from the coast to the interior

143. which is different from those early traders those early traders were just confined to the coast they euhm

144. waited for the inland traders mainland traders to come to the coast and sell their goods with theirs and then

145. they went away but now there were more arabs staying at the coast interacting with the people of the coast

146. and then euhm those arabs slave traders went to the interior and they as they went in to there yes euh they

147. spoke what can be called as kiswahili and so we find that kiswahili now was spreading even to the interior

148. of euh east Africa// any others things?

149. what about others?

150. you are not giving me anything

151. yes?

152. s8: the (xxxxxxx xx)

153. t: yes// again another thing which he wanted together/ with eumh (0.5) with the (0.5) with the trade/ was the

154. spread of islamic religion into the interior// instead of having it just along the coast now we found found

155. towns like ujiji there/like kigoma/ there like tabora/.those wich were euhm sla:ve trade centers or trading

156. centres// you find that people have converted to islam religion// any other things we can know about?

157. ((= phone starts ringing))

158. ni humu daradani ni wapi?

is it in this class or where?

159. s0: ((l)ni humu)

in here

160. s0: ((lni nji)

outside

161. t: ok-// ((looks at s11) yes?)

162. s11: introduction of new crops//

163. t: introduction of? new crops// with seyyid that is seyyid said introduced crops// i wonder if

164. coconut? they where there: but for sure crops came with seyyid said//

165. any other things you know?

166. ((looks as s12) mm?)

167. s12: intermarriages//

140

168. t: ((laughs)) of course there were intermarriages ((laughs)) in those areas where the the traders went

169. or they just bring women from there brought women to the post and so on and so on uhu?

170. any other things you can think about? yes?

171. ((looking at a student) what about juliet, do you get the point?))

172. s13: yes

173. t: fabiola?

174. s14: yes the growth of coastal villages

175. t: well i don’t that first but i suppose i can euh take that yes there was growth of city states that is you you saw

176. that in between when the portugese came those coastal city states were declining they were falling they

177. were becoming poor because there was not enough trade but as seyyid said came to the coast now the

178. coastal city states were regaining reviving euhm there wealth and so we find now city states are growing up

179. becoming rich because of the trade which was being carried between the coast and the interior// any other things you think about?

180. are you putting up your hand?

181. no you’re not. ok??

182. s14: (xx)

183. t: can you speak up i can’t hear

184. s14: (xx)

185. t: kadija speak up you know i’m a women and i’m using a big voice so you can do it like me

186. s14: (xx)

187. t: you’ll see that even if you try nobody is going to laugh at you

188. s14: because they lost their freedom

189. t: all right that’s yes of course they lost their freedom because now they’re being controlled by others because

190. seyyid said moves his own home and especially he came that i thought you were going to say those of you

191. because what i will give you is is an answer to because at this time euh slave trade became a very big trade

192. and so most lives were lost most people lost their families and so on because it was seyyid said who

193. introduced slave trade as a trade. and it continued till the end. any other things?

194. yes?

195. s15: all the fertile land were taking by arabs//

196. t: all right that we can euh when we are studying about those feudal lord who stayed along the coast

197. there was umwinyi

those who take everything

198. and there we have we say that there were serves, and prisons and slaves//

199. so now during this period when a seyyid said introduced euhm crop plantations coconut plantations he did

200. not do that work with himself he used the other people to do this work and so he met these people to

201. becomes serves so euhm the o or the natives of the original people there are two

141

Appendix 1E: Transcription 5


Date: July 28 2008

Data set: Z.5.A.

Class: Form 4

Subject: English: conditional tenses

((Excerpt 15))

1. t: if esther get's the fifty thousand shillings/ what is she going to do with the money? (1)

2. s1: [((raises her hand))]

3. t: ((looks at s1) yes editha?)

4. s1: if esther get fifty thousand

5. t: ((interrupts)) ((nods no) = ah ah ah )say it again? [if?]

6. s1: =[if]

7. =esther

8. t: mhm?

9. s1: get (1.5)

10. t: ((looks at s1) if esther?

11. s1: =get fifty thousand shilling/ she will take ten percent of the money to the church and keep the rest//

12. t: ((looks at the class) is she correct? (0.5)

13. s-: ((s) no)

14. t: no? how? ((starts writing on the blackboard)) what is the sentence?how is the sentence suppose to be?

15. ((looks at the class)= if esther?)

16. s- =((mumble))

17. t: =ha?

18. s+ ((in chorus)) ((l)gets)

27. t: ((writes the sentence on the blackboard) gets/ very good)

20. if esther?

21. s: ((in chorus) gets//)

22. t:: aha?

23. if ester gets? fifty?

24. s: ((in chorus)= thousand shillings//)

25. t: uhu// (1)

26: s-: (s) she will take))

27. t:: yes? she will take// she will take? ten percent (1) ten percent of the money? (3)

26. the first time when we are doing this/ talking about if clause// if sencence//

...

142

Appendix 1F: Transcription 6

Location: Hekima Waldorf Primary School, Dar es Salaam (tanzania)

Date: June 12 2008

Data set: W.3.A.

Class: Class 6

Subject: Social studies

1. s1: you said which country surrounded by only land?

2. sijui

i don’t know

3. one land and (xxx)?

((Excerpt 12a))

4. t: which country is surrounded by only one country? and why south africa fought apartheid?

5. s1: they fought because lo:ng time ago when euh euh (1) wazungu

white people/europeans

6. t: =((l)white people)

7. s1: ((looks at t )wazungu? they co:me here in africa they started treating us badly/)

((Excerpt 12b))

8. s1 then they if you do the work they doesn’t give you money, or they give you only small food in (1)kiba:kuli

bowl

9. t: ((loud) bowl)

10. s1 If they give you that tomorrow you don’t have the food so you going to work in the farm//

12. t: so why they fight?

13. s1: because they want they want their freedom//

14. because they were treated badly//

((Excerpt 2))

15. t: what is freedom?

16. s1: freedom is the word which present/ (1) like somebody (1) for example wants their freedom to be out//

17. s2: ((to s1)) ((laughs)) aaaa aah wewe unaboa wewe

you are boring you

18: s1: ((to s2)) na wewe unaboa mdomo wako mbaya toka hapa shut up

and you are boring too you got bad mouth go away

19. s1: freedom are like people they

20. t: =((interrupts)) they just wanna know but they not what they are//

21. s1: freedom is eeeh (2) unamwachia mtu

letting go of someone

22. t: ((l) in english)

23. s1: freedom is a uhuru unaitwaje vile?

independence what is it called?

24. s0: ((loud)independence)

25. s2. sio uhuru freedom is relaxing; is leave me alone

not independence

26. t: what was tanzania contribution towards freedom struggle in south africa?

143

27. s1: what?

28. t: what was tanzania contribution towards freedom struggle in south africa?

29. s2: ((to t: eeee bwana eee))

god

30. s3: because

31. t: = not because

32. s4: they finally (xxx)

33. t: what were tanzanian president at that time?

34. s1: that is was mwalimu julius kambarage nyerere

teacher

35. t: what did he do?

36. s1: he do (xxx) because

37. t: =what did he do

40. s1: because we fight with them and then we get (xxx)

41. s2: ((l) no he didn’t fight)

42. s3: the mwalimu julius kambarage nyerere fought for freedom of tanganyika that time

43. t: =how did he supported south africa

44. s3: he supported south africa by sending away that, by fighting and by sending away people who were putting

45. s1: ((interrupts) = so a tanzania they supported south africa of because that time or not because)

46. hat time the chairman of tanganyika was nyerere and the chairman of south africa was mandela

47. so there was there mwalimu nyerere was the friend of mandela

48. so nyerere so, yes

49. s4: =so nyingi.

too much/many so

50. s1: so south africa no longer they will be ruled by white peoples

51. t: what did nyerere do xxx?

52. s1: nyerere do did that

53. he went there with his people then they started helping south africa to fight

54. s2: ((reading) he was the first chairman of the country which was in front to fight for independent in south africa

55. t: how did he helped them?

56. t: ((decides this question is homework: ok homework))

57: s: ((make a lot of noise))

58: t: and that kelele mnanizo mea

noise are you insulting/bo-ing me

59. s1: mwalimu julius kambarage nyerere helped the country of south africa

60 by sending some soldiers of tanzania

61 to go and fight for the freedom in south africa

62. s2: ((l) there were no soldiers)

63. t: ah ok homework

64: s: ((to s2) aaaaa aaah vipe wewe?

how could you?

((students fight over a textbook))

65: s1: steve sehemu yako si ile pale steve sehemu yako si ile pale

steve your place is over there steve your place is over there

144

66. steve weka kati basi kitabu

put the book in the middle please

67. steve: ((does not put the book in the middle))

68. s1: sasa basi weka katikati basi

now put in the middle please

69. steve: sasa katikati ndiyo xxx

now what is middle

70. s1: lete basi

bring please

71. steve weka kati basi kitabu, wewe si unakaa kule

steve put the book in the middle, you always sit over there

72. steve mbona unakuwa hivyo?

steve why are you behaving/being like that?

73. steve: kwani wewe ndiyo umeomba kitabu

are you the one who asked for the book

74. kitabu nimeomba mimi ngoja nimalizie

i asked for the book. wait till i finish

75. s1: umalizie nini

finish what

76. ste: amalizie kuelura ((drawing???))

finish drawing

77. s1: amalizie kuelura na sisi

finish drawing what about us

78. ((loud) teacher looks at steve he doesn’t want to put the book in the middle)

79. t: sit down and be quiet

((same students start fighting over a pen only seconds later))

80. s1: peni yangu iko wapi steve

where is my pen

...

((Excerpt 1))

101. s2: ((l)nimemaliza)

i finished

102 t: ((l)=in english please)

103. nilisema hii stopu, weka chini

i said stop this, put it down

104. leave the chair down

105. s0: they don’t know english

106 na shule pia watu hawajui english

even in school people don’t know

107. mtoto anaambiwa don’t pass

a kid is told

108. yeye anafikiri place

him/her thinks

...

145

Appendix 1G: Transcription 7

Location: Hekima Waldorf Primary School, Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)

Date: June 26 2008

Data set: W.6.A.

Class: Class 6

Subject: Geography

9. t: if they ask you african countries/ what are they?

10. s1: kenya//

11. s2: zimbabwe//

12. s3: comoro//

13. s4: sudan//

14. s5: south africa//

15. s6: egypt//

16: s7: libya//

((Excerpt 11))

17. s8: somalia

19. s9: msumbiji

mozambique

20. s0: [=((l)mozambique)]

21. t: [=msumbiji is not english its’s kiswahili]

22. s10: kenya//

23. t: ((to s10) people are not watching you cannot lose) ((meaning don’t look at the map of africa))

24. s10: kishasa//

25: s11: congo brazzaville//

26: s12: nigeria//

27: s13: somalia//

28. t: no msitaje mara mbile your repeating don’t repeat

no don’t say/mention twice

29. ((l)ok/ everybody of you)

30. kila mtu hakikisha ameshika kwenye kichwa yake huko

everyone make sure you got that in your heads

31. what are the physical features of africa?

32. s: [((noisy))]

33. s1: [like physical features of africa is mountain]

34. t: ((angry) =ok/ test what are physical features)

35. s1: physical features are the things which are not made by human being

36. t: what are they?

37. s2: mountains, stones, rivers, seas, trees, seeds

38. t: what is climate? what is atmosphere?

((Excerpt 8))

39. atmosphere is air condition (xxx)

40. for example/ when the smoke were coming then it is the pollution of the air

146

41. atmosphere/ ok?

42. =ni hali ya hewa

it is the condition of air.

38. what is climate?

39. s1: ((looks at his textbook) climate is average condition observed recorded five to forty years)

40. t: ((l)=you started badly)

41. s2: climate is average weather condition?

42. t: of?

43. s2: climate is average

44. t: ((l)=an average)

45. s2: an average weather condition which is recorded over 40

46. s: ((students are very noisy))

47. t: what is climate of africa? is he the only one to define everytime?

48. thank you (xxx) because of him (xxx)

49. s0: ((start shouting physical features) sun, tropical forest, semi desert, water, rainfall)

50. t: =what is semi desert?

51: s1: semi desert is like a desert but is a half of a desert

52: t: ((l) clap everybody clap)

53. now where did we end?

54. vegetation of africa did we write?

55. s: ((l)yes)

56. t: and do the exercise?

57. s: ((l)yes)

58. t: development and complimentary africa not yet

59. kwa hiyo hapa ndiyo tunaanzia

therefore here is where we start?

60.. s1: tumeishia hapa

here is where we ended

61. t: ((l) (to s1)hapa is where where is hapa)

here here

62. ((l)you have to mention)

63. s1: =various regions of africa

64. t: is it he the only one?

((students start arguing over a pen))

((Excerpt 16))

65. s1: ((to jeffrey)toka)

go away

66. jeffrey naomba peni

jeffrey can i borrow/have a pen?

67. s2: unaenda kumwomba peni?

are you going to ask/borrow a pen?

68. t: ((while throwing a pen at s2) (l)= in english)

69. s1: ((to t) jeffery is a stealer)

((meanwhile other students are writings the answers to an exercise down on the blackboard))

147

70. t: ok ok

71. kila mtu aandike mwandiko mdogo

everyone has to write in small writings

72. t: ((t starts marking correct answers on the blackboard))

73. t: ester got it right

74. s0: ((expresses dissatisfaction by making noises))

75. t: ((to s0) unamdharau ester mbona za wengine husemi))

do you despise ester? how come you don’t say about others

76. huyu anamdharau ester kwenye dictasheni utampigia saluti

he/she is despising ester, when it comes to dictation you will solute her

77. s0: ((mumbles))

78. t/ hiyo ndiyo dharau

that is despising

...

Appendix 1H: Transcription 8


Date: June 23 2008

Data set: W.4.A.

Class: Class 6

Subject: Social science

1. t: east african community has how many countries?

2. s1: east africa have five countries//

3. t: which are they?

4. s1: uganda kenya tanzania burundi and rwanda

5. t: is it written?

6. s: yes//

7. t: is it written?

8: s1: in this book class five//

9. s2: ((to s3) anajikamatisha)

he is getting him into trouble

10. t: can you show me?

11. in the east african countries/

((Excerpt 9a))

12. t: in east africa we have only three countries

13. rwanda and burundi are not yet//

14. ok? so it is not ready//

15. bado hawajakubaliwa kuwa jumuiya ya africa mashariki

still they are not approve/agreed to be part of east africa community

16. lakini wanaomba na wao wawemo lakini bado hawajakubalika”

but they are still asking to join but still not approved/agreed

17. kwa hiyo kwenye notisi zenu na mitihani ziko nchi 3 tu. ok?

therefore in your notes and exams there are 3 countries only

148

18. wanataka wajiunge na shirikisho but they are not yet in shirikisho

they want to join the union but they are not yet in union

19. they are not yet in the community ok?

20. s-: yes//

21. t they are just discussing what to do/ and now when it come the issue of kenya/ about?

22. s3: =the oil//

23 t =the conflicts (0.5) which were there everybody starts to fear if this is the situation

24 when we join together we can kind of (0.5)

25 (xxx5)

((Excerpt 9b))

26. s4: ((l)i don’t understand they asked the east africa community then someone asks the 3 countries then it is 5now) (0.5)

27. t: that is not very official/

28. =for example? the syllabus we are following and the book we are following we just tell you what in the book/

29. those things can be written in the magazine computers or whatever wherever/

30. =but according to what we teach? we just follow what is in this book and this book is signed by the

31. government people/

32. So we can’t add more the things that are not here//

33. maybe we can ask the ministers of education//

((pupils are fighting over a pen))

((Excerpt 17))

40. t: ((l)people what’s going on there?)

41. s1: ((l)abraham stole a pen)

42. s2: =and then put in bag?

43: t: ((to abraham) yes i am waiting for your mom in the afternoon//

44. abraham yes ((l) ndiyo)

yes

45. s: ((laughing out loud))

46 t: ((l)you speak English to me)

47. abraham:walikuja kwenye deski langu akachukua peni yangu

they came to my desk and he took my pen

48. nikawa (xxxx) rudisha peni yangu

i was bring back my pen

49. t: ((to abraham) (l) and why don’t you use this one (1) if it was yours why did you hide)

50. abraham:no nimemuomba

no i did ask

51. t: ((l) why are you hiding?)

52. abraham:mimi nimemuomba huyo

me, i did ask him

...

149

Appendix 1I: Transcription 9


Date: June 23 2008

Data set: W.4.A.

Class: Class 6

Subject: Social science: drugs

1: s1: ((reading from the textbook) when one becomes addicted/ they are unable to behave normally//

2: they drop out of school// once out of school? they become socially (x) lonely (xx) and miserable//

3: some commit sui sui sui

4: t= ((l)suicide)

5: s1: suicide/ while others suffer from various (0.5) e elements (0.5) like depression and de diseases related to

6: cancer// of the longs (xxxx)// others (xxx) from drugs and they go to jail or worse they are shot dead//

7: ((s1 hands the book to s2 who continous reading))

8: s2: drugs rob you from your ha happiness and your future// drugs is misu(xx)// drugs))

9: t: ((interupts)= ok// thank you// now? let's discuss//)) we have to discuss now/ about drugs//

10: what are drugs?

11: s1: ((l) one day I saw on the)

12: t: ((interups) = raise up your hand pleas//)

13: s1: ((raises up her hand)

14: t: ((looks at s1: remember))

15: moses?

16: Moses: ((stands up)) drugs are the things? which young people use (1) so: that (1) they can loose their (2)

17: t: what do they loose?

18: Moses: like when they are/ when they are do bad thing then they use that so they can ((puts his hand on his head

19. and nods) forget it//) and they loose the happiness and you cannot be straight// Eee: so you can be like

20. crazy but your not crazy//

21. t: one can be//

22. Moses: ye:s/ one can be and crazy and other not crazy// (sits down again)) (7)

23. t: ok/ now ((points at s1) you go// )(5)

24. discuss about drugs//

25. ((student, s1, walks to the front of the class and starts talking)) ((class is a chaos, a lot of noise))

((teacher leaves the classroom)) ((different conversations between students)) ((3 minutes later, teacher walk in again))

51. t: ok// let's discuss// (20)

27. do you need a paper to write something?

28. S0: ((l) yes) (15)

29. t: ((hands out papers)) ((students keep on talking)) (3min.)

30. ok/ now/ tell me something about drugs///

((Excerpt 14))

((student, s1, starts talking, very nervous))

26. s1: ((l) when you take drugs/ it is not righti)

27. t: ((l)=it is not?) (0.5)

150

28. s1: it is not righti

29. t: ((l)=not righti, you have to pronounce it right//)

30. s1: when you take drugs it is not right//

31. drugs are so dangerous// they make your life miserable//

32. euh (2) the:y (1) when? you take drugs? Your eyes become red// you be la:zy

33. t: = you are lazy

34. s1: you are la:zy// and When you get money you always think of think of ((change in voice) ah? When i'm

34. getting this money/ Im' going to to: buy drugs? Then you just like you draw a picture or you paint a picture?

35. then you ou go to the euh shop and you sell/ the they give you money//

36. when they give you money? Then you take that money and go: and buy drugs//

37. so it will be that game// every day and every day and every day//

38. and you will lo:ve drugs more and more evey day//

39. so: drugs are dangerous//

40. it makes even? (2) make your (1) or you can even kill somebody// (5)

41. s3 ((takes over from s1))

42. there are different kinds of drugs// (4)

43. drugs (2) yaani? if he does that/ he do drugs/ he will lo:ve them//

meaning

44. like how you love the most thing in the world//

45. that is how drugs (2) when you catch euh that's how drugs do: when you do that//

46. they they hurt your brain/ and it will be like you lo:ve drugs//

47. so every day you//

Appendix 1J: Transcription 10

Location: Kenton High School, Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)

Date: July 17 2008

Data set: K.3.A.

Class: Form 5

Subject: English: tenses

1: t:: ok? So/ (0.5) I will be cooking tomorrow//

2: we say continuos tenses/ must have a gerundium//

3: even though it is in present/ even though it is in past/ or? future//

4: what you have to put in (xxx) is? There must be? a? gerundium//

5: and a gerundium is when you at i n g// when you at/ i n g to the verb//

6: it becomes a ? gerundium// (1)

7: ((student walks in late))

((Excerpt 20))

8: t: ((puts her textbook down and looks at s1) what time is it?) (5)

9: s1: ((looks at his watch) ni saa tatu)

it is three o'clock

10 s ((students laugh))

11. t: =this is class/ you come to class now?

151

12. ((looks at s1) it is ten past nine)

13. ((looks at the class)) that is what he said/ it is three//

14. ((looks at s1) look at your watch)

15. ((looks at the class)) it is three, that is what he says)//

16. three?

17. ((raises her voice)) now/ you you still don't know how to count?

18. ((acts surprised) you can't use your watch?) (2)

19. now/ what time is it?[yes this is the same] thing we are talking about time here//

20. s: [((stundents laugh))]

21. how ? you see the time? how to read time? look in your books how to read time//

22. and now? somebody is saying it is 3?

23. that is kiswahili, you count in english here//

24. =someone tell us the time (5)?

25. s0: (xxxx)

26. t ok/ somenone with a watch? (5)

27. ((looks at student s2in the back) yes)?

28. s2: ((no respons follows))

29. t: oh my goodness, you don't know how to use your watches (3)?

30. whitney? Can you help us? What's the time?

31. withney: ((s) the watch is not working//)

32. t:: [((looks surprised) it is not working?)]

33. s: [((start laughing))]

34. t: ((goes to a student in the front) what time is it?)

35. s3: ((s) a quarter past three//)

36. t: = a quarter past three?(4) ((looks at s3) ten? a quarter past ten//)

37. ((to the class) this one is like ((points at s1) him in kiswahili) (4)

38. ((l) now/ how your you suppose to be on time?)

39. s0: ((shouts: nine past a quarter))

40. nine past a quarter?

41. s: [((start laughing))]

42. t:: [((claps her hands))] (3)

43. this is incredible//

44. nine past a quarter?

45. s0+: ((l) a quarter past nine//) (2)

46. t:: ((l)my goodness? Nobody?) (xxx) (4)

47. ok// I'm not going to teach you time now//

48. ((start cleaning the blackboard)you know what? I'm not teaching you time today//))

49. I'm tired of teaching you time// every time time time time time//

50. now/ what (xxxx) (8)

51. now/ for tomorrow/ tomorrow we are going to practice on these tenses// ok?

...

152

Appendix 1K: Transcription 11


Date: July 30 2008

Data set: Z.7.A.

Class: Form 5

Subject: English: Clauses

1. t: ((pointing at the word ‘verb’ on the blackboard) clause consists of subject and verb)

2. hii ni muhimu sana, au kwa kiswahili (xxx)

this is very important, or in swahili

3. and therefore i am sure you are aware of swahili//

4. ni kwamba unasema hii ni tungo inayotokana na kiima na nini? (0.5)

it’s like that. you say this ((meaning clause)) is a sentence which is made of/by subject and what?

5. s-: ((s)kiarifu)

predicate

6. t: kiima na kiarifu kiima ndiyo subject/ si ndiyo?

7. subject and predicate. kiima means subject, is that right?

8. and the kiarifu is predicate ok? (1)

9. who can us give one other examples of the clause? (5)

((teacher writes an example on the blackboard: “she is writing very slowely”))

((what is the subject, what is the predicate?))

10. t: she is writing? (1)

11. t: [very slowly]

12. s+: [very slowly]

13. t: she is writing very slowly//

14. ((points to the blackboard) this is part of a predicate)

15. tunasema/

we say

16. kiima ndiyo hiiki ambacho kinakuwa na naun au pronoun

the subject is this one which consists of a noun or pronoun

17. and therefore for a predicate must consist from the verb? rest? to the end//

18 another example?

((student asks what a direct object is and what the difference is with an indirect subject))

19. s1: direct object and indirect object is different i think sasa nitazitofautaje?

now how can i differentiate them?

20. t: =differentiate what from what?

21. s1: =kati ya direct objecti

between direct object

22. yaani katika matumizi ya direct (xxx) compliment subject (xxx) yaani jinsi ya kuzitofautisha?

meaning in the use of direct compliment subject meaning how to differentiate them?

23. t: ((walks to the blackboard) unasema object unasema hive)

you say object you this

24. object (xxx) therefore (1) if an object/ is the one which is been affected by the action and by the subject//

153

25. therefore we say? that there must be a present which is means affected by that action//

26. and that one being is affected firstly is what we call? (0.5°

27. s-: ((s)direct)

28. t: the direct object//

29. kwa mfano mimi nakwambia au wewe unasema alinipatia kitabu.

for example i’m telling you or you are saying she/he gave me a book

30. alikupatia nini?

he/she gave you what?

31. that is the first question to ask// (1)

32. kwa hiyo alikupatia kitabu. kitabu ni kitu chia kwanza kufanya nini

therefore he/she gave you a book the book is the first thing to do what?

33. s-: =((s)kutolewa )

to hand out

34. t: tunasema nipatie chaki

we say? give a chalk//

35. then i give//

36. ina maana hii chaki ni kitu cha kwanza

that means this chalk is the first thing

37. kufanya nini?

to do what?

38. s0: =kutolewa//

to be handed out

39. t: halafu yule anayepokea// that is the second

then the one receiving

40. do you see? that that is indirect object//

41. yule anayepokea ni indirect object

the one receiving is the indirect object

42. =kile kinachotolewa ni direct object.

the one handed out is

43. nimeeleweka hapo?

do i make myself clear there?

44. s+: ((l)ndiyo)

yes

...

154

Appendix 1L: Transcription 12


Date: July 30 2008

Data set: Z.6.A

Class: Form 3

Subject: Social science (globalisation)

((teacher explains what privatization is, she asked the students to give examples of companies that used to be owned by the

government but are privatized now.))

...

121. s1: ((l)tra) ((tanzanian revenue authority))

122. t: tra? (sigh) wo:w?

123. s2: ((l)= no no no) that is impossible//

124. t: =that is impossible can you privatize tra?

125. s: ((in choir)no)

126. t: =how? (2)

127. s2: trc ?((tanzanian revenue cooperation))

128. t: tanzania revenue what?

129. s: company?

130. t: company?

131. s3: =(l)cooperation)

132. t: cooperation// of course that has been privatised/

133. and (1) i thi:nk there were some question at place individual that in that street called what? kibondo//

134. do you know that street kibondo?

135. s-: ((s)yes)

136. t: mnakielewa?

do you do you know it?

137. somebody was asking if this was the what? The (1) the objects of this have being pri:vatised by what? (1)

138. tanzanian rere cooperation has been achieved//

139. any other company? (2)

140. another company which has been privatised? (5) ok// so? (2) privatization came after self-reliance//

141. t: when was it introduced? ((looking at a student in the back) back bench)

142. when was it introduced? (1)) the policy of self-reliance? (2)

143. you: (1) remember? those da:ys when your parents were shifted from their own original village and brought

144. together in one village? we call it ujamaa// (2)

145. so you forget he?

146. so you go and ask your history teacher/ or you revise some notes and you will find when the police was

147. introduced/ and who introduced the police of what? (1)

148. t: self ? yes ((wants to say self-reliance but gets interrupted by a student who wants to say something))

149. s0: 1967//

150. t: 1967// (1) by who?

151. s0: mwalumi julius nyerere//

155

152. t: mwalimu julius kambarage nyerere introduced the police of what? (0.5)

153. self-reliance// elimu ya ujamaa na?

ujamaa education and

154. t: [kujegemea//]

self-reliance

155. s-: [((s)kujegemea)] (2)

self-reliance

156. t: so? the other objective of privatisation was preserve the growth of? self-reliance//

157. t: so see you next time//

158. mwalimu wenu atakuja awafundishe formation of what?

you’re teacher will come and teach you the (in)?formation of what?

159. s: life skills//

160. t: ah life ski:lls//

161. ndivyo vitu vyote mlivyofundishwa?

those are the things that you’ve been though?

162. s+: ndiyo//

163. t: kama hajafika please call me, tumeelewana.

if she doesn’t arrive/come please call me do we understand each other?

164. s+: ndiyo//

165. t: ok//

156

Appendix 2: Open field interviews

((NOTE: this appendix only contains interviews with teachers and academics cited in this

dissertation))

2A: Martha Qorro (UDSM):

((What are your thoughts and opinions about the current language in education policy?))

The debate hasn’t really changed. There has been, and it depends on how you define

change, but there has been change in terms of how many people now see the problem, the

language problem. There is a bigger awareness. Much bigger yes. I remember in the early

nineties, nineteen ninety, there were only maybe a couple of us thinking about the language

issue and people thought it was a bit crazy: how can you think of switching to Kiswahili when

we are actually improving the teaching of English? But, I can see the group is widening, it's

becoming bigger and that is the biggest change. Also, in the media you hear more people

now who are in support of change of the medium to Kiswahili. Basically they start separating

language teaching from using language as a medium of instruction. Specifically, English

language teaching from using English as a language of instruction. But I think we'll need

more time to get more people convinced that, if you want to improve English language

teaching in secondary schools, you have to remove it as a language of instruction because

that is where it really gets mixed up. Teachers use it whichever the way they know it,

whichever the way they’re capable of using it. And if you have one English teacher, a class

and nine other subject teachers who are teaching in English but not the right kind of English

that you would expect. Therefore, it works against the work of the English language teaching.

To me, it's that simple. I’m surprised why people don’t understand and see that as a

problem....

((What do you think about the proposal of changing to English medium at primary school

level?))

To me, as far as education is concerned, I think it’s suicidal. It’s a dead end. If we cannot

teach English language properly, if we cannot teach it as a language than we have no right to

use it as a language of instruction. It’s so simple: teachers don’t understand it, students don’t

understand it, so how can you say you want to use it as a language of instruction? To me, it

sounds really crazy. There are no other words to describe that.... When you talk about

teaching English, I would go out looking for teachers to teach English as a subject. But using

it as a language of instruction, no, I think that is a disaster. You know? And it’s going to be

disastrous... Even to the teaching of English language itself. The best way to teach it now is

to leave it to the English language teachers just like we do for French. We manage to teach

French and we don’t use it as a language of instruction...

((Is there anything like the ELTSP right now?))

No there isn’t, and I think it didn’t succeed as far as teaching of English is concerned. From

their own reports, the level of students' English language proficiency was raised from like two

levels below D, ah no below F. So if you count down two levels from below D, you come to G.

157

So raising the level from G, if that level exists at all, to D, that does not actually help. It does

not actually make English usable as a language of instruction so that is why it hasn’t worked.

So I don’t think the primary situation would work. If it doesn’t work for secondary schools, it

would be even more difficult for primary schools....There is no program like ELSTP at the

moment, but I do believe that if we are expected to be helped by or through the British

Council or the British government, they will insist that English should be the medium for them

to help us. But I don’t think it is even necessary for us to expect that kind of help because it

doesn't really help. I look at it as if you have your child who is under water. That child is deep

under water, and someone tells you they are going to help you bring him up. But they pull

him up from the bottom of this pool to one meter under the surface. That child is still under

water. It doesn’t matter what the change might be, he is still under water.... He cannot

survive, He cannot breath, he is still under water. But, they have helped. They have lifted him

from way down, up to somewhere close to the surface. ... And I think, ok, they have done a

good job and made some improvement. But, that improvement is not sufficient to make

children proficient in English and use English as a medium of instruction...

If they can't even do it on secondary level, it is going to be even more difficult to improve the

English language at the primary level. I believe it may be necessary now to delay the

introduction of English until primary five in order to give students room to first learn Kiswahli

properly before they are introduced to English. That is a basis for learning English. And that

is how it used to be. Before independence, English was taught from Standard Five, the fifth

year of primary school. And, by that time, students were well proficient in Kiswahili. So we

need to use Kiswahili as a basis to learn English. But now, they introduce English from

Standard One. That is a point when they are just learning Kiswahili. Now you come up with

this mixed kind of something that is not English and that is not Kiswahili. So what is it? And

even when we insist using English in secondary school...what is being used is not English.

It's that simple. It's not English, it's not Kiswahili. It's some mixture in between and it's code-

switching....

I've been talking to some professors in the US, for example professor xx., and his argument

is that even if they were proficient in English, it would still not be a good idea to teach them in

English. It would still be better to teach them in their first language or in a language with

which they are more familiar. I agree with him, because I think it's better to strengthen this

first language. But, if you don't use it in education, there is no way you can achieve this.

Why? Because this is the language that's being used outside the school in the communities.

So, you are actually linking the communities to the schools if you use Kiswahili as a language

of instruction. You would make what they study in school more meaningful to the people

outside the school system. So it's even more useful for the community. And of course, we

lack books in Kiswahili. But the only way to have people write books is when you switch.

Because then there would be a market and more people would start writing in Kiswahili. If

not, we can go on complaining for fifty years saying that we have no books....

I think the government doesn't change because it's the same system that has trained us to

think the way we think. We have been trained to think that English is the world language. But

if you go elsewhere, to Denmark for example, you will see that English is the world language

but it's not replacing Danish. We are so endorsed to this thinking that we feel English should

replace all the other languages. If we had a magic way of making our parents and our grand-

parents speak English, we would do it. Whatever price, we would pay it. But that is not the

158

right kind of thinking...But people feel that when you speak English then you can go

anywhere in the world. But, this is not true. We think this way because it’s part of our colonial

mentality, the colonial thinking. This is not who we are meant to be. These are the kind of

people the colonial government wanted to create. People who think that English 'is', and

there is no other language that can 'be'...Those are the people who make the policies who

think that no other language is good enough to teach our children. So I think that's basically

the reason. It’s a mindset, an outcome of the educational training we’ve received. And I

myself was thinking along the same lines until I went somewhere else and started my

masters in Welsh, again through the British council. But until then I was thinking we need to

teach in English in order to improve English. Later I found out that is really nonsense. You

need to teach English in an environment where people learn their subjects in a language

they understand so that they have a deep understanding of the subject matter in different

disciplines. And it is that knowledge that actually helps them process. Or you use English

language to process that information. But, if you teach them in English, they don't get that

information. So if you don't give them that information in a language they understand, then

they have no knowledge to express to other people....You need that knowledge for practicing

ground, to practice the language because you have the knowledge. But if you don't have the

knowledge what will you practice?...

((What do you think about the idea of linguistic imperialism?))

I think that's precisely what's going on because that's precisely what education was meant

for, Western education. To go out there and convince people that this is the best form of

education of the world, this is the best you can get. But the funny thing is that, for those who

were ruled by for example France, they think that French is the best language in the world.

Those who were ruled by the British think English is the best language in the world. And the

best knowledge in the world can only be acquired through English. Those who were ruled by

Portugal, they are also still teaching in Portuguese. All the books are in Portuguese, so what

do we do? This is colonial mentality. There they are using Portuguese, here we are using

English, in Congo they are using French. So who is right? I think we are all wrong. We need

to be using our languages to educate our people.... Everyone thinks the best language is the

language of the former colonial master. So, that cannot be a right answer…this is a colonial

project. We think we fought for independence, we think we are free, but we are not free at

all...It is metal colonialism. There is no question about it. Why would someone go and preach

that their way of seeing the world is the best? Even when it doesn't fit in our environment.

The way people think they are superior compared to others so others have to learn there

languages. The moment you believe that, you join the club. And unfortunately, most of the

people here have fallen into that...

HakiElimu has been working in the schools and they have come across this problem.

They've experienced and they have seen. And most of these people that are telling us that

Kiwahili is not the solution and English is not the problem, either they have not been to the

classroom and they are making their decisions sitting in their offices without doing any

research, or they simply don't want to because maybe they are convinced by the British or

others that the best way to learn English is to have it as a medium of instruction. Or, they

simply don't care. But, I think there is a serious problem and I haven't yet come across a

country in the world that has used an unfamiliar language as the language of education and

made any headway in development....

159

I think this is not about improving English, but it is about restricting other languages. And we

are being fooled for too long. And I think time will come when people realize that we are

being fooled. It is very sad that we are falling into this trap and we cannot talk in the same

voice when it comes to getting out of this situation. That is the sad part of the story and I think

that is because of the education we've received. We've been trained to think like that. And I

don't know how people who claim to know so much, to care about human beings, to care

about democracy, to care about human rights, would do such thing to other people. It is

painful. How? Why? People do things to others and they think that they have the rights over

everyone else... And I think time will come when people realize. How long? I don't know.

Certainly one day...It might not be in our life time, but it doesn't matter. We might not see

these changes, but it's ok as long as we know that one day it will come....One day the truth

will come out, I know it will... .

Can you imagine how much damage you are doing to these children when you tell them that

their language is useless? And if you say that.. everything that goes with that language: the

culture, their home, whatever is attached to the language, knowledge and practices are not

good, are not valued.… Schools are suppose to teach only good things. So, what is not

wanted is not a good thing…. If education tells me that my language is not good, my culture

is not good and I have no other culture... how prepared am I to go back to it?...After school

you are bound to look for some place else, you don't want to go back home….it doesn't train

you to be with your people... . You are talking about removing children from their home to an

environment different from the home, and teaching them something different from the

knowledge at home, prohibiting them to use knowledge or know knowledge from home ...and

at the end of the day you would want them to go back? Where? How? … They don't fit in

anywhere…

2B: Michael Kadeghe (UDSM):

((What are your thoughts on the practice of code-switching in classrooms?))

I own a private school. We use English because it's the law of the land. Actually, people who do code-switching, they are contravening the law. They should be punished. All teachers who code-switch… because they are contravening the law which dictates that only English, even here, English should prevail. So if an inspector from the educational department comes and hears you code-switch, he will definitely cut off part of your salary. You know, there is no excuse what so ever...political, ideological...no way. Everything is in English, the books are in English. The exams will be written in English. Now, the argument is, if you spend most of your time teaching in Kiswahili, when will the school teach them the terminology that they are suppose to know on their exams? Because they are in English.... Now we come to linguistics. These two people here, the student and the teacher, both are bilingual. They know, assuming that they know, both languages. So, because in such kind of interaction, code-switching is inevitable. Can they do away with code-switching? No....

Most of the parents send their children to private schools in the expectations are that they learn more English. They send them there to speak the English language, not for the content of the education. They are happy when their child comes home and says: daddy! How are you?!.So, the owners of the school or the manager of the school will never accept anything less than English because it is English that gives them money... So they use English language to get more money.... What will happen if parents see Kiswahili is used? He/she brought her child here because of English. Now, Parents don’t want Kiswahili. He or she

160

brought their child here because of English. When you go to English primary or even nursery, you will see children speak good English, even better than most of the professors here. Yes, because they have everything, computers, all the guidance... Now, because of that, more parents who have money will send their children there, because they know English is a latter for economic achievements. That’s’ what they think and that’s what it is here. All job-interviews are done in English. No matter how cleaver you are, as long as you speak English...Now, most of the people who get work in East-Africa are people from Uganda or Kenya because their proficiency in English is a bit higher compared to Tanzanians.

Now parents they know that with English their child might actually climb this latter... . Government secondary schools don’t have that kind of ambitions. What they do want is some kind of political figures showing... so many people completed it this year, etc. The question of whether they are good in English doesn’t matter, what matters is the number of people who completed the program... That is why many parent come and take them to private schools. In those classes they don’t switch because if you switch it would mean less money for the schools. Why? Because students would tell their parents that teachers switch and parents don’t want that....

Now, the best way to know how code-switching functions is in government schools. It can give you the real picture. In English-medium schools you will be punished for speaking Kiswahili, so there is no code-switching. It is a criminal thing. Now in government schools the first thing we ask: is code-switching beneficent, does it help anybody? You will find that, If you teach these guys in English and you switch to Kiswahili, teaching them the same topic, using both languages, there is no significant difference in their scores…Why? Because students who come out first in English, also come out first in Kiswahili.... . Now, what does that tell us? It tells us that sometimes, probably, languages in terms of classroom situations do not have much influence to the students cognitive capabilities....In a test in government schools, in a mathematics test in Kiswahili, out of a 100 students who wrote the mathematics examination in Kiswahili, 90 per cent got zero... In private English medium schools, out of a 100 students who did the mathematics test in English, 97 per cent scored 8 in subjects which were taught in English. Now, what does that tell us? Language has no effect. There are a lot of other aspects...in private schools, teachers are motivated, they are given good salaries, they have tea, lunch, they have everything. So, they are willing to teach. This is not so in government schools. If this is the case, language has no effect.... There are other constraints... That's the reality...

((So you think the language policy should stay?))

Yes, it's quite interesting. You know, we're working against the government policies. The ministry of education said that as from next year all subjects will be taught in English, from Standard One in primary school.

((who said that?))

Professor Mujimbe. But it's not going to happen....It is going to be difficult, because the linguistic profile in Tanzania is predominantly local languages and Kiswahili. And they do believe, as you do, that children are more competent in languages when there's much exposure....But, competence is one thing and performance another thing. I think the brain needs to be reminded, reintroduced, time and again. Being reminded… because the brain is like if you don't remind it, it will be deleted or put in the back of the head. Those little things have influence. Now, if that's the case, if English is not normally spoken outside the classroom...it's difficult for students to remember those vocabularies and practice the English language. Now if English would be used in primary schools, it will fail for the reasons I have given. Outside, everybody uses local languages. So, when are they going to practice the language?....You know, from Standard One to Standard Four, students haven't even mastered their local languages, let alone Kiswahili. Because, Kiswahili to most of the

161

Tanzanians, is the second language. So, they are suppose to understand their local language, Kiswahili and English...that is just too much....no wonder people switch. So when you look at code-switching, you have to look at the entire linguistic profile of Tanzania.

Have you seen the display on TV of HakiElimu? They are teaching about global warming and let them speak in Kiswahili. That actually answers some of the questions...

A couple of years ago, before all the trouble in Kenya, many parents send there children to Kenya. It wasn't that Kenya has a better education system than ours, but English in Kenya is more advanced... Now parents are sending their children to private English medium so that their children could speak English....English is education...If we talk about falling standards in education, we are talking about falling competence in English. Why? We are so interested in our former colonizer...we have a colonial hangover. We have to please them. English…that's why we got a lot of support from the United Kingdom....if we throw English away, we will not get any more money... 50% of our budget depends on donors... If you want to please them, you have to live up to their language, no matter how much it costs us. We are interested in this language, because it opens gates....

The ministers, you can tell them anything, but nothing bad about English. Because English is about everything that makes these men. Speaking English to the people means you are educated, you are brave, you are convincing.... If you speak English, you are like a queen, you deserve to be a leader. For example, one time a minister was giving a speech in English and he failed to pronounce some particles, people just laughed, could not believe someone in his position could not speak English well...

It will take more than talking about issues at a linguistic level, because we need to look at other tendencies of this country. What are the interests in this country?...One time a minister said, why put all this energy in a language only 2% of the Tanzanians speak?...The argument was that no parent wants Kiswahili as a medium of instruction...because Kiswahili in this country means failure. No parents want to make his child a failure....On an economic level, we have millions of books in English, and almost none written in Kiswahili. Now what? Translate?...How long will it take us? Do we have the experts? And if we do, will we present the same concepts in Kiswahili? Because, the thinking an the writing is entrenched in the language of the owner of this particular language. Worlds are seen differently according to the language you use...So when we translate, we have to translate in the perception of Kiswahili which is not good. So, write your own books? We have to write, create original books of our own Swahili world.... But, is there anybody that can do that? I don't know. I haven't seen any one.

You cannot be born today and walk today. You have to go through all the processes of walking. So, let us crawl first. Then they say, do we have to go back crawling when America is there, Britain is there...why don't we move forward in English and see what will happen? Nobody wants to take us back. There is a very positive correlation between development of language on the one hand and scientific and technological development on the other hand. Language cannot develop in a vacuum. You would have to be good in marketing and in production, in economy, in making machines...only then your language can also develop...For example, computer....Now people say, why don't you just borrow the word, call it computer? Or Keybordi. Let it have Kiswahili phonology... So, as long as our socio-economical and scientific development is low, no way is our language going to develop. Because, it will be very outside technological and all development which is out of context. I have never seen languages being made by people, language is the cause of work and production. Through production you create your own language. Words are created through the production process... We have a lot of words here but they are not operational because they were not born here... . Now, do you want to tell me that if we switch to Kiswahili as a medium of instruction, do you think it will be appropriate to be used in schools? Where are we going to get those specialized words for those sophisticated subjects? ..It's like, in

162

Kiswahili we say ‘pinda’ or bend. Like you put something in water and it bends. Now, if you tell that in Kiswahili that it's pinda, you are creating a false concept...so probably the politicians are fearful that if we make this change abrupt, so quickly, it will cost us. It will make us have to sacrifice things which we have already achieved...But if we want to go higher, we will have to go a step back....

2C: Saida Yahya-Othman (UDSM):

…Some professors here speak English at home because they think Kiswahili is an

uncivilized language. People here are very aware of the exclusion factor of English... Here at

the university, people are saying that the level of education at the university is going down.

Which it true. But it has gone down at various levels. But the thing that people comment on

most is that our students are not able to express themselves in English. People are not so

much concerned of perhaps what they have actually learned. They are more concerned with

the level of English and that students can't express themselves when they go on interviews

or apply for a job. So they do not say the level of education is going down but what they are

saying is that the level of English is going down...It is so destructing. These private

schools...parents don't know how much suffering their children go through.

2D: Yared Kihore (UDSM):


I’ve had a position on that for a long time. I don’t know rather you have read my works? I still stand my ground simply because I think that we are doing a mistake by all these policies. What the government may not know, I don’t know rather they know it or they want it to know it, but when we were at school in those days, some of us went to school during the colonial days. First of all, there were very few schools, very few pupils, very few teachers, but there were a good number and it was racially distinguished in those days. The colonial government had the supervisors going around all those schools, so when, for example, I was in level four there was a British supervisor coming to check all exercise books to see if we had a good spelling of English words... But then, another thing, before we, that was lower primary school, when we went to middle school, that is Standard Five to Eight, most of us were in boarding school. Those boarding schools…teachers could force anything. They could say don’t speak any other language here, and so we went around the struggle to speak what they wanted us. So that way we got the English...

Now that the situation has changed so much because ...with the students outside the school ground… because most of the schools here are day schools. They stay for a few hours and then they go back to their community. A community which is ... speaking different languages. Swahili is much more then the others but it’s all different. I think in ninety seven, I think that’s when I did the research in some of the schools, and the situation has changed so much it’s only in the villages or those in towns….Here in town a class is full. If the teachers don’t enter the class early, then they can’t find a way to get to his or her area, and he has more than ninety students in a class which should have been for forty-five. It’s just difficult. That’s the problem we are also facing at the university. We receive students who don’t know English and we instruct them in English. Some of us here have got a class of six hundred and that is not a class, that’s a public meeting. Now whether such a situation can be fit for anything I am not so sure...

163

((Kihore on code-switching))

There are other languages you know... So you keep mixing them, for various reasons. Some of them you’ll observe in your classes. But the observations which many people don’t see is that there are two things: there also that of resistance and subservience. Because...in other in other lessons, like in other class lessons like history, you speak about resistance to colonial things, and then somebody brings the colonial language in. For some people they switch to Kiswahili just to resist the English. But there are those of us who still want to keep the the history, you know? They want to be subservient to English as much as they can. And so it’s difficult, but you have to try and so you keep hanging in. Now some of us... but those of us who went to school, with all this strict English supervision it must have been this that... some people lived in schools where there was that strict English supervision. But then you have also religious knowledge here which insists on all these foreign things and calling your habits evil, immoral . But, people start school and then drop out, they drop out. But this resistance is part of it, and nobody has thought resistance is still continuing somehow. So you see, it as a form of resistance that’s going on still. But elements of subservience are also there. People still want to be faithful to the status quo...

The general deterioration everywhere in classrooms and outside classrooms. There are less boarding schools left everywhere and the nice and control is gone. Things are not that controlled. They practically really force some practice on people as they want. And even those who cause that or not even in the best position anyway because I would like to talk Kiswahili when I like to talk so. If I have to tell students to speak English when I myself I don’t speak English… I understood it when the colonial supervisors would do it because they were settling the interest. But the situation as it is now, for sure, whatever we want to achieve with whatever these policies say...I’m sure we are doing damage to ourselves. We cause much bigger damage then we are realizing now. But it will cost us ourselves. As I followed up this issue long, I notice we are in for a much bigger problem than we think. Because when we go to school I think we go for knowledge and you find you have no language to acquiring that knowledge. You end up struggling to know just one of the languages because English is one of the languages and then you can’t even get it... . They don’t understand the language so they can’t acquire knowledge really. When I did the research that was around the Arusha region and others, you go to class and the teacher comes in and he or she starts teaching with very poor English....

When it comes to examinations, they must be in English. Now we have been telling them ok... if you think it works why then don’t you allow those who want to take the examination in Swahili. Because we notice we are still so faithful to English. I mean English is a language you can learn even without being in class....

((Kihore on language ideology, power and colonialism))

We are loosing the opportunity to know English well because we choose knowledge acquiring with a different medium of instruction. But now people want to make us know English, and English to many people here that is the knowledge.... Because the Tanzanians teach in English but do not know English... Now, if you came back to English, first of all you have to get teachers who know English, and where do you get them? Even if you get them from Britain, you will not get that many anyway... Because that has already happened, the British came here for some English improvement program and that didn’t work. They injected a lot of money into that and never achieved anything. Why do you think that they don’t change it? It is because of the international relations and language ideological issues that they think English is the language of the world and the language of knowledge and the language of science. I think there is a lot more to it, things we don’t want to acknowledge...Now, those of us who are educated, they got something different and foreign... and we have tried to preserve it, only preserve it not even promote it. Because if you are educated than you have a ground which you can develop in your own way, but that is

164

not been the case in Africa. We just get some knowledge which we keep repeating. If we want to improve anything on education now, some delegation is send to Europe or America to see the new things there. You come with those new things because ,first of all, you can’t even afford it, but that is still it doesn’t link anywhere. You talk about new knowledge, about whatever the computer things and so on. First of all, you can’t afford buying the facilities, and secondly you bring the facilities here you are not linking it to anything so the few who get them don’t even use them for anything. So, the education here is just a plotting education somehow. It is not even linked to the African ground. Because the day you get educated you already broke the relations with your home. You don’t want to be anything local. So you turn and just listen to what is coming from outside. But we know very well that in history, for example, when you are seeking knowledge outside. You see what the other people do get the relevant things you need, and then link it to the ground you already have. But Africa has never done that and they do not intend to do so and that is strange. And so, people like that when they go in politics they got this education even at the university…they don’t find it strange because they are educated, the cream of the society, not even the society, you’re just the cream of yourself, but you’re are not linked to anybody here, we just have out office here, that’s all… A villager may come here may want to know what I’m doing and I don’t even know what to tell him...

Now when these very big politics... it is worse. Because, first of all, they are not necessarily the best educated and so they go there with their planes and little knowledge and they think, first, that the only way to survive is by keeping the links. And they are keeping the links also because they think that it may be too difficult to do other things. Because if you’re promoting English than you may expect some money from Britain or USA or some other country. But if you want to promote some African language, who do you go to? It means you have to use you’re brain to know what to do first. And most of us do not want to do. We are looking for books written and we are not writing them in Kiswahili. Because, if we write them, we are not even writing on our issues. They will be issues related to international whatever. But then, you kill what is from the ground. Being on that ground, we find there is a lot of knowledge to be promoted or talked about. But those of us who are educated we are killing it. Most of these governments deal with the best they do is abolishing that. Whatever local element is coming up, make sure it doesn’t grow… So there is a lot more around which I think we should get it out to the world. But the educated African…at least it gives us some salary here and we survive and are better off than others....

If people can be celebrating great things like Christmas, why don’t we celebrate things of our own, things which are our own things here? But if it is international than we jump on it and we feel that we are there and our colleagues are rich. We think that we are so special and so on… . ((and do you think that is because they really believe it’s the best? Or do you think it's because they are scared of what would happen if they would change)) Exactly, because…we had a workshop here where somebody raised the issue of promoting local languages and people were resisting that. They say: why should we do it? You got the African Union and that type of thing, they are not sure. But, there was resistance about that simply because if this thing gets out somehow a lot of us would be unemployed because most of us don’t know those languages and we would be equal to some foreigners coming here to do that same thing. And, these are the things which hold us tight…first of all to do it..... When I talk to my colleagues the elements of resistance... Because you wonder, we like things produced by industries…. If we cannot ourselves develop some base than we cannot develop anything. We want to improve education....

Change must come, because otherwise we can’t survive. With HakiElimu you see the issue is there, it can’t die. Now the impact is so great. You want to get more people to school and you don’t have classrooms, you don’t have teachers. The situation gets worse and worse and that itself will tell us that we are not getting anywhere. But then, the fact also that the education is not making us anything and it should make us something. The best it has made

165

us is consumers of whatever is produced outside. That’s also because of the language. I mean, it’s a barrier for development. Yes so you have all these problems. The good thing is that a lot of people see this. The government is still resisting, or not necessarily resisting but they don’t know what to do about it. What we are avoiding is the difficult job. We think teaching English is easy because materials and assistance will come from someone. But we are not getting anywhere and I don’t think we can go on like this. I’m expecting a breaking point. And I’m also glad it’s coming from outside. At first it was only a few of us, now a lot of other people see the problem. They’ve been seeing the problem for a long time but the difference was that those who saw things differently did not talk about it.....

2E: Josephat Rugemalira (UDSM)


I run a private primary English medium school. Why did you choose for English medium? I

had no choice. No choice in two ways. This was way back in 1994, when the government still

had the monopoly on primary education and because of pressures from some communities

they provided a rule for a few organizations to establish private primary schools. And the rule

was that you must use a language other than Kiswahili. Otherwise you can’t, this is

government territory. So that was part of it. But it has changed after they amended the law.

The other reason was, because primary education is regarded provided by government for

free, If you going to do it, why would people come to your school? The majority of those who

want to come, want English medium education for their children. If they would want Swahili

education, they would go to the government school. They are there and they are free. Since I

did not have money or a rich foundation to establish a free school I have to rely on fees to

run the school. You have to look at the market. Those who are willing to pay, they want an

English medium school. So those are the constraints within which we have worked...

((What are you experiences with that in practice? Does it work with English))

Almost no children have English as their mother tongue. We are in Dar es Salaam, so almost

all of the children have Kiswahili as their first language. And those who come from outside

regions, from rural areas, come to join the school and they would not know Kiswahili, but

they pick it up very easy. English is not a language children come to school with.... . In

schools there is a very mixed population. Even in government schools, there are children

who come from English medium.... In my experience, youth who had primary English

medium education they have an advantage compared to those who haven’t in that respect

that, even if they are not smarter, they have an advantage because the instruction is in

English. So even if they are not any more smarter, they have an advantage… they will show

off and they will intimidate others. But eventually, this advantage need not take them ahead.

They need to work hard as well. On the other hand, it is an advantage because the language

of instruction in secondary school is English...

((Do you think Kiswahili medium would be better?))

I think so, even at primary level. From primary to secondary, I think it would make a

considerable difference in the quality of education in the schools. It wouldn’t solve our

problems, but it would be a step in the right direction. Even in the primary schools where the

instruction is in Kiswahili the quality of teaching is not good. You would expect more

166

participation by the learners, but there isn’t. So it’s just not the language problem... It’s also a

problem of resources and personnel. What do they think teaching and learning is about?

What is teaching and what is learning? So the quality of the teaching needs to improve as

well. But I think it would be a step in the right direction. That we would be able to combine a

more familiar language and put an effort in improving the quality of the teachers to make a

real interactive educational experience....

In my school, we rely on teachers who do not have English as their mother tongue. They are

not very well trained in using English, or even as teachers of a second language. There is no

such training, there are no such opportunities... I look at them and I wish I was at liberty to

let them use Kiswahili....

((Do you think the situation will change? Will there come a change soon?))

It might and it might not...A minister announced that he would change the entire system to

English. And I thought...well if he is going to last. Ministers of education come and go. They

come with their own ideas, if they come with any idea at all. Those are politicians and they go

soon. So, it might just not happen. On the other hand, I would think maybe...because there

have been very big changes in the atmosphere over the last 20 years. In the 70's and 80's

there were some of us who thought it was just a matter of time before Kiswahili would

become the medium of instruction...but know that what the minister said could happen. We

know it's not just the forces within. There are powerful forces that have English as a

language. The publicity industry is a big industry, it's big money. So, it's not that simple...there

are big interests..... There are powerful groups that would like to have English, that work with

our former colonial master. It's not a small matter for them and they have demonstrated that

in the past. In the early eighties, when it looked like the change was going to happen, with a

clear time table set for when, we came across the British. We cannot dismiss this fact....

((Do you think that English is being enforced by outside forces?))

Yes, it is part of imperialism. It is part of it. The matter is not in isolation. It is also cultural

imperialism, through American music, television, news, cnn,...it's all part of a bigger package.

It's about money, the dollars and the Euros, and it's one of the components.... The ELTSP

finished a long time ago and it didn't work. Its work was to make sure no change of policy

would take place....In the 70's you might have said there was resistance because it was very

aggressive that we want a national idea of where we want to go and this is the way to get

here. And eventually you could see changing minds that valuing ah…if it's not foreign it's not

good...if you don't use English, you are not educated. If you are in the parliament and you

don't throw in a couple of English words, they do not think you know what you are talking

about. Even this code-switching, it is a manifestation of the battle. There wasn't that kind of

code-switching in the parliament at an earlier stage...or it wouldn’t be frond upon. But now,

it's like a form of pride. I think these are several indicators...

167

2F: Casmir Rubagumya (UDSM)


...Well the territory hasn’t changed much from, I mean even from the time I was doing this research. I mean, the problems are still the same of English as a medium of instruction and most students cannot cope with it. But a number of people have done research on this and the results are always the same: that English is not a valuable medium of instruction at secondary school level. There is of course, this move by some private schools to go English right from kindergarten. Some people are saying it is working but my own argument has always been that ...some of these schools are actually very good, but they’re not good because of English. They’re good because they have resources, they have computers they have well trained teachers, they have school buses so kids are ferried to school and back, they have the school lunches, all that makes a lot of difference. So, if they seem to be doing well, I don’t really think it is because of English. It is because of these other factors. I’m sure if you had the same school with Kiswahili medium with the same facilities, they would probably do much better....but it’s not that they’re not planning on changing anything. In fact, very recently the minister of education said they want to change they want to go back to English from the beginning, which would really in my view that would be a big mistake. Because I mean if it is not working at primary secondary level how is it going to work at primary level with the same facilities? It can work well for a few elite schools like it is working now, but if you want the public schools to go English medium and you don’t have teachers, I don’t think it really works...

((What do you think about the practice of code-switching?))

...I have tried to analyze reasons for code-switching, some of them are pedagogical motivated where teachers switch to Kiswahili because they feel the students have not understood so they want the students to understand. But, sometimes code-switching is actually done… it’s maybe for like for discipline keeping. So it’s… you switch to a different language when you think maybe students you want to get them back to the lesson so you use it differently, a different language...Sometimes, if the teacher wants to identify himself or herself to students, to be more friendly maybe to be closer to them in that sense yes there is....

2G: Teacher 1

((Do you find the use of English as a medium of instruction a problem?))

I think the students in secondary level, they are attending somehow not very good because

of the language problem. In fact, they are used to Kiswahili from Standard One to Standard

Seven. Especially those who are attending the public schools. So they all have to change of

language from Kiswahili to English. It ‘s somehow no good for them. They cannot understand

well the other subjects because of language. Because they are not used to that

language....there is a little dysfunction. They have to change to English....

The solution to that, for me, I think the solution is that you change the language from basic,

the language of instruction even in secondary level. .I think they are speakers of Kiswahili, so

let them learn in that language also in secondary level. So English should remain as the

subject... For me, I think, because our nation language is Kiswahili, it’s better to use it.

Because when you go to Japan they are using their language, they are not using English.... If

they are doing well in the education matters, even if economical problems, they are doing

168

well in their language... .Switch the debate to Tanzanians. They use Kiswahili. I think that the

problem resolves if we would use Kiswahili...

((Why do you think there hasn't been a change yet?))

I think, especially those stakeholders, they are frightened of changing those books from

English to Kiswahili because they think it’s expensive. And also, you know they think that if

we use English, we are going to be as an island. That we are going to be isolated. That the

whole world now a days is using English. So I think it is their thoughts that if we change it, if

we start using Kiswahili, they think we will become isolated like and island. I think that is what

they are thinking...But, if it’s possible in other countries, why not in Tanzania?. Why not

possible to us? Because other nations they are not using English, they have it as a subject.

((So you think English would not serve better as a language of instruction than Kiswahili

would?))

For me, it’s not the truth. Because, any language can be used, can express several things. In

education matters we can use it, it s good for several things. In education matters you can

use our language. The problem is that, because in some subjects we use some words. We

are using words that describe something which are produced in other countries. So I think

that, for those who are teaching those subjects, if we use Kiswahili and we use it to teach our

students ...a lot of thing which we talk about in class they are made by other people. So, how

can you remember and know those things? The thing with language is that you can learn

things by your own language. You can learn other things when you use another language.

And they will understand it....Even in the governmental places we are using Kiswahili. The

use of English is mostly in schools. Even elsewhere, even in normal talk, we are not using

English. Students who can use English only, they think only English is good. But, in their

home places they speak Kiswahili. So English is mostly used in schools....

Only few Tanzanians speak English to each other because they see it as a sign for a learned

person, an educated person. And it's not that it's more simple to them than Kiswahili. It's a

sing for some kind of status, that they are wealthy, that they are educated. But it's not that

simple to them...

We have a system that we have to change. And, it’s possible because if we see in other

countries that it is possible, why not in Tanzania? Because we have depended on the

colony? That means what? We are depending on the outside, on other countries. That is

right, but we are fighting. But if we leave English aside, if we use Kiswahili we will not be

isolating from other counties...Education is brought in from abroad...If they give you good

education we can also tell them that they should use this or this medium of instruction. It’s a

simple method...For me, when we change, even it is expensive, we can take the

time .Because it’s not good to have an abrupt change. It's a long process. But it can be done

because if it's possible in your country, it's possible for other countries like Tanzania.... What

are we afraid of? For me, I think we can be very well educated if we can use our language

because those children are used to Kiswahili from when they start in the community. It's their

mother tongue. So it's possible to use the mother tongue in education because it will be

possible for them to understand the issues.... You know, sometimes they apply for schools

but they do not get in. It's not because they are not intelligent but because of the language...

169

((What about the other problems Tanzanian education is facing? What about resources? On

a scale from one to ten, how big is the language problem compared to the other problems?))

The language problem is the biggest problem…

2H: Teacher 2

What can I say about language in education? For education it’s too much for our country. In

primary and secondary. Now, in the other schools, they use English. But most of the

language outside is Kiswahili. So, a lot of schools use English as a language for teaching.

But those students who are in nursery school...after nursery school they go to primary school

where they use Kiswahili. After primary school they may go in secondary school using

English. So that’s disturbing. When in nursery school they use English, they come to primary

school and they use Kiswahili. So they forget about the language they used there.... They

use Kiswahili and the English is like another subject. English as a subject, not for teaching.

When they go to primary school they use Kiswahili as a teaching language. Then when they

go to secondary school they are using English, all subjects except Kiswahili our national

language. So in Form One they find difficulties. But sometimes even the teachers they don’t

know how to use proper English...

In Tanzania there are lot of travellers. So, especially villages, they use a little bit of Kiswahili,

a little bit of other languages. So they use their mother tongues. So when they go to primary

or even nursery, they find Kiswahili and it is easy. I don’t know in your country, you use only

the national language, or the mother tongue?...But here in Tanzania there is the mother

tongue, the national language and what they call the communication language. But the most;

this is the communication language from secondary, communication is in English. But I heard

about the parliament that they want to make the use of our national language to be the

communication language from nursery to university. Maybe it would be easier for people and

students in our country to understand well when they start from nursery to university using

the same language. I think that the changing of the language will make the learning to be

more easy.

((So you think it would be better to change to Kiswahili?))

Kiswahili or English, but when we start from the beginning it will be easier. But if we use the

same language it is easier. Any language. When we start from the beginning it will be easier

to understand...

((So you don’t have a preference?))

I think English. Because with English there are many countries that use it. So it would be

better to start from the beginning to university....Because Kiswahili up to now, we don't have

many scientific names and we’re meant to contract names. But in English they are already

written in English. It could change but It will be costing for changing to Kiswahili. We will have

to find words and translate books, especially for sciences. For science and social science...

To change words from English to Kiswahili.…

170

In some countries, they specialize their children from the beginning. They find early for

students or child which interest they have. So it becomes easier to learn because the child

has interest to that thing, but in our country we don’t have that. For example, here in Form

One, we have about ten subjects. Ten subjects for Form One. That is very hard... there are

too many subjects...Another problem for education is the lack of materials, book . For

example, for schools the lack of materials for chemicals. Our school is well equipped but

when we go to other schools we cannot find the materials... .

((Do you think the language problem is just one of the problems or is it a bigger problem than

the other problems?))

I cannot say that it’s not a bigger problem. It is one of the problems, not a bigger problem... I

think from Kiswahili it becomes a secondary language because many Tanzanians speak

English...

((Do you think that's important, speaking English?))

Yes, it is very important. Because it is an international language. Many countries are using

English. When we go to other countries, maybe to study to become a doctor... and for

international meetings it is very important to learn about English. I think you know about even

that’s why you ask. We are competing by using English because it is an international

language. So it is very important to learn English. But it is also important if we know our

national language very well. But what can I say, that maybe for our country we have to lose

our national language and go to English which everyone must know to communicate with

other countries...

I think we learn English the best with the medium of instruction. Our students, what I think

that is, If not all our people in our country, that all those who can pass to school, they have to

know English because it is international. Nowadays the world is just like a village so if we

don’t know we cannot compete, develop and go to other countries, we are cut of internet, we

cannot compete and communicate with one in Europe or wherever....

2I: Teacher 3-4

((Do you think there is a problem concerning the language-in-education situation?))

Teacher 3:

Yes, I’m not sure whether it’s a problem or it’s not a problem, but teaching students in primary

level in Kiswahili and coming to secondary level in English, I think there is a repetition of

some of the subjects, so it’s more than the language that you teach them. When they are in

primary education in Kiswahili and they turn to secondary education you teach the same

things, but in English. So I’m not sure. But I think there is a repetition and when they come to

secondary education, the student sometimes don’t understand and they fail to connect what

they studied in primary education to secondary education. Maybe they fail. They're the same

things but it’s the same thing but they fail to connect it. They don’t understand....When it

comes to exams, they just study and then write it. So that makes them not to understand, not

171

to keep them in their mind for a long time, not to apply that knowledge we have reached to

them. And it’s a problem....

But I’m not sure if we teach them in Kiswahili. For me, I’m confused because they fail in

Kiswahili and they also fail in English. So there I’m confused.... Ok to say that today there is

a problem with educational policy for our country. They could put English to be used as from

the kindergarten, that from the kindergarten the person has to be taught how to speak

English. And also for the parents. If you take an example of a child in his school is taught in

English, but when this child goes back home now the communication there then is Kiswahili.

Now There is a problem. I think the government should put a clear and workable policy

where English is used from kindergarten to primary to secondary to university level, so that to

solve the problem of communicating in English. And this can also solve the problem of

performance, that performance would be better in English...

((And what if Kiswahili would be the medium of instruction throughout the entire school

system?))

For me it’s a problem. Today we live in a globalized world. You know, we are globalizing like a

global village. We are in competition for working in the world, and English has become a

global language and everywhere we go, we need to know English. So, if we start using

Kiswahili in secondary education, so what…we are going to be limited. Then, you cannot

move from here to the UK, you cannot move to Belgium and work, that we are limited in

working in Tanzania. You want to work with and always use English. So if we limit ourselves

with Kiswahili and we will be like an island...

((What if Kiswahili would be the medium of instruction and English just a subject?))

I think, of course if we fail to keep English while it is used as a medium of communication in

all the subjects, it’s possible for us to capture it well as a single subject? Because when you

practice learning English or write it in all subjects, you learn it while speaking, writing... . In

biology. you get some concepts or some terminology, in physics you get another terminology,

in every subject. So if we teach English as only a single subject, that would be a big

problem....

((In Belgium, I never had English as a medium of instruction. I learned English through

having it as a subject))

Teacher 4:

Fine, but you as Belgium, your economic level is not bad, it is good. Maybe our economy is

part of the problem. In Belgium the economy is good and you don't depend on anybody, you

do everything on your own. You don’t depend on somebody else. But we as Tanzanians we

depend on the outside world for everything, and it’s where the problem arises. We need to

write all the things in English, so sometimes not for our own benefit but also for favouring

those outside. Maybe our economic level is also a problem. We need English to serve our

economy. So we can develop. Sometimes I think it is as well our few terminology. If we learn

things in Kiswahili how it’s going to be? Kiswahili has few terms. If we teach physics or

biology, how should we do that? We do not have enough terminology to do so. And we have

a repetition of some words. For instance, there is the word Pinda. Pinda is bending in

English, but there are different bendings. Pinda, let’s say for instance, if I took a stick and I

172

bend it, I will say 'pinda' in Kiswahili. But in English you say it has bended. But at the same

time, you can put something in the water - I don’t know if it’s a reflection or whatever they call

in English - but they use another terminology to say or to mean something that hasn't really

bend but is sort of a reflection. And then we have that pinda....the rainbow...So in Kiswahilli,

we have only one word pinda for a stick in water, pinda for that rainbow, pinda for something

that has already been in water and bended. But in English, there is 'bend', 'rainbow' etcetera.

So you will confuse the students sometimes because we lack terminology. That is only one

way and I use to know it used to confuse me. Kiswahili, there are to few vocabulary and

terminologies. But what we are saying maybe we could improve Kiswahili. Then we could be

using it even in our school or anywhere...

((Do you think, language is the biggest problem Tanzanian education is facing right now?))

Teacher 4:

I think the system of education is not good at all and language will be a part of it. But it's the

general system of education....My problem in our system of education is that we studied a lot

of subjects from primary to secondary. And we don’t define ourselves as where do we want to

go at the early stages of education. We just go and we see where do we pass. And in my

opinion or in my view, it depends on how the exam was set up on that day and the way you

see it. You may pass in language studies while others are good in chemics and physics or

what ever. The exam will determine where you will go. Maybe my interest is chemics and

physics, but yet I did well in languages. The final exam will determine my career. So my

opinion is, we have to determine earlier, in the early stage that I want to be a doctor, I want to

be this, I want to be this and I will put my efforts in this.…Unless you give me two

examinations and you see me failing, you can drop me. But don’t define me in only one

examination. So we found a lot of people moving in many careers, in a career in which she or

he is not interested. That is one problem. The other problem is the language.

((Is that also why the drop out rates are so high? Why are there so many students in the O-

levels and so little in the A-levels?))

Some drop out of school, but many failed the exams. It can depend on culture sometimes.

Going to school, studying, it is not main in our culture. Some of the students they don’t know

why they are in school. From Form 1 to Form 4, if you ask why you are here...sometimes she

doesn’t care. She’ll be in a class because she is supposed to be there. If she is not, she

doesn’t care....sometimes they don’t want, they are forced by there parents. We teachers

used to force some of the students, we punish them that they have to go class and study

study study. Sometimes you have to tie them, make sure, things alike. So they don’t care.

They don’t see the importance of being in school. Some of them do it for there families. But

few families see the importance of why going to school. At least we see today a number of

people have understand the importance of a good lesson. But yet , the lessons, they are still

not ready to know why they are studying...but they don’t understand. Very few, if you go into

class and ask them. Sometimes you ask: why are you studying? Because I want to pass the

examine. Is that the only reason? So if you fail? Anyway, the problem is not only that. Also

you can be rejected the A-level. Some do not study hard and they do not get there. We try to

tell them that they have to study, but they do not understand. Of forty students, maybe only

ten can go to the universities. The rest they can go home again. But they don't want to

because of the poverty, the famine...

173

Teacher 3:

What I see, generally, there is politics, there is a lot on how we use English as a medium of

instruction…now it's politics. There are many things that hide this one, but maybe we can put

it in Kiswahili. But whatever we speak, we Tanzanians, we are so proud when we speak

English. Sometimes you are seen as important because you speak English. You feel proud

when you speak English... Feeling that speaking English... you are something, you are

someone of the higher class.…and this started with colonialism because we were under the

British....And those who were very close to white men, they used to speak English very very

good. Those who were away from the white men, they used to speak native languages or

Kiswahili and they accounted as less people, not important at all, marginalized. So from then,

those who spoke English had a higher status...white collar jobs were for those who knew

English....So, the classification started during the colonialism and we have maintained it up to

today. Even doctors, when you go for an injection or something, you don't know what

prescription you've been given. The doctor knows Kiswahili but he will write in

English...you're not able to read what you have and what medicine you need. It is really a

problem...

((So, to finish the discussion: English or Kiswahili?))

Teacher 4:

English. The issue is to strengthen English as a medium of instruction. As a medium of

instruction from a very very early stage in education. English should become the first

language of children? Because, those students who come from international schools they

speak good English, they know hot to express themselves, they're free. They have

confidence. Even teachers here, if you know how to express yourself in English in front of the

students it produces confidence. We cannot go back and start with Kiswahili, it's too late...

2J: Teacher 5

Now, the policy concerning language in our country; primary school, the language used to

teach is Kiswahili from Standard One to Seven. But in secondary school, from Form 1 to

Form 6, English is the language used. But, the main problem when students come from

primary to secondary they face the problem of language. The main problem is how to speak

English, proper English, you know they can speak English but not the English that is

required. So there are some mistakes in when they talk. And this problem faces also the

teachers because teachers also came from that schools, primary school, then secondary

school so that problem is enrolled in secondary school, then university etcetera. Teacher they

teach in poor English. But this problem of English language nowadays is minimized because

we have private schools and academic secondary schools. Now, in private schools the

language used is English. So for those students who went to that schools, they can speak

English... .So there is some improvement when our policy introduced private ownerships of

the schools, compared to the previous one when there were only governmental schools. So

that problem is minimized nowadays. So students can speak English and the problem is

minimized. It’s not the same to the previous one when we had only governmental schools.

But the main problem is how to communicate. Students who came from primary will face this

174

problem because of changing language, Kiswahili to English. You can say nowadays it’s

minimized, that problem is minimized.

((Because of the private schools?))

Yes, private schools using English as a medium of communication. They use English as a

medium of communication. So for those students who went to that schools, they can speak

English, even they understand when you teach them in English.

((And what do you think would be a good solution?))

Well, the main solution is to, at the primary level, to practise English from there. You know

that primary is the source. When students face this problem from primary and then go to

secondary, the problem will exist. I think the solution is to insist on English language from

primary school...I cannot say that if Kiswahili would be the main language to be used we

would solve all the problem. You know that problem arises apart from the language. You can

have the problem of understanding the subject, but the subject itself is the problem. For

example economics,...it needs English but the basic ideas concerning the subject also

reveals the problem. So that subject itself can give a cause of problem apart from

language....

I think English is the best because it is international. In this world now a days, the language practiced in most of the countries is English. So, to practice Kiswahili as a medium of communication also will continue to be the problem. There are some other countries where Kiswahili is not the language.... So it is better to teach in English so that students can communicate or can go to other countries for other studies in English. English is better because we want a language that is used worldwide. That is my idea. English is better than Kiswahili because Kiswahili, yes, it is our language, but some countries, we want to communicate worldwide. Now we want the language which is used worldwide. So English is the only language. So it’s better to continue this English as a medium of instruction from Standard One. You see what I mean?...We must use Kiswahili as our language but English is the additional language. We have to develop as well…it’s hard.

2K: Teacher 6

((How do you feel about the language in education situation?))

Well, English to Tanzanians, I mean the use in education has become a problem. Why?

Because the medium of teaching in primary school is Kiswahili. Now they take English as a

subject. They are not teaching English as a language of instruction. They are teaching

English as a subject. When those students come to higher classes, secondary schools,

colleges up to universities they face some problems. Now when they come through, they are

forced to speak English, they use English all over the year. Now we think because they don’t

have what? They don’t have good foundation...Therefore, when they come here and all

subjects are taught in English. Now they face difficulties because it is an abrupt change: from

primary school where they are using Kiswahili in all subjects and now they need to use

English in all subjects. Now when we teach English, we use a lot of images, especially we

English teachers. We use a lot of images because of these students. But we are assisted

from students who are coming from English medium schools...in primary education. They

175

seem to master all subjects in classes because of their good foundations they received in

primary schools...

Now what happens is this: when they come to the end of the secondary school education,

some, those who are quick learners, they are able to speak not totally good English but a

little bit good English. And others will not understand completely the language. Because

when they go to higher institutions we find that what they’ll be using is the same language,

the same English. Now what they do there is, if they ask a question or they ask to say

something, they can use the language. But in outline, not a good explanation, they use to

outline to mention: point one, point two, point three. That is what I see...

((How do you think the problem could be solved?))

Well, the problem can be solved if the language, I mean English language, can start in

primary school...

((What if Kiswahili would be used in primary school, in secondary school and in university?))

For the world have at this time, I don’t think that Kiswahili should be the language of

education. I don’t think.. because this is a world of science and technology. The world now is

a village, you see? When they use Kiswahili, from primary school up to university, you are

hiding them from a village. You are giving them a boundary. They cannot be able to speak

and communicate to outsiders, you see?... Now I don’t think that Kiswahili should be used to

be the language of teaching from primary school to higher levels. I think both languages have

to be taught...

((You don't think English can be acquired to having it solely as a subject?))

I don’t think so. The problem would remain the same. Because when they go out, when they

go home, the language they use all the time is Kiswahili. Now, when they get in class they

tend to forget what they got. They forget it completely. Even as a subject, they would

abandon it...We force them to speak English, but they don’t. They cannot because it violate

with what they now from outside in their communities where they speak other vernaculars

and Kiswahili...

Sometimes I switch to Kiswahili. When I see that they do not understand me completely then

I have to switch into Kiswahili, although we are not allowed to, to give them a translation.

Now what I can do, I mean sometimes what I can do, is to give them a definition of what I

want to say or to explain to them what I want to teach by using another teaching aid....

2L: Teacher 7

((What do you think about the fact that English is a medium of instruction in secondary

education here in Dar Es Salam or in Tanzania in general))

Well it is a bit a problem nowadays. I don’t know where things went wrong but especially

such lessons as history for example where, I mean, there are not figures like mathematics:

the way you can say 2+2 because something you have to make whatever idea they want to

present to be understood in English. So for many students that is a very big problem

176

because they know very little about English. and I suppose it is the situation when you go

home you are just talking Kiswahili. Even around the school we try to say speak English but

you find them there speaking Kiswahili, they don’t practise English at all. And in primary

schools in fact English is not the medium of teaching, it is Kiswahili. So when they come to

secondary schools it is an abrupt change. And so, they find it difficult to catch up. So that’s

the problem that it gives...

((what do you think could solve the problem?))

Well I have been teaching for a long time, 37 years, but I think English would be a good

medium but it should start from primary school. This change from Kiswahili after seven years

of Kiswahili and then they change it to English causes those trouble. Because we also had

started a thing we were thought by using English but it was not a problem as it is now

because we learned because we learned Kiswahili as a lesson and not as a medium of

teaching in primary schools. But now it is the reverse, in primary schools they use Kiswahili

and when they come to secondary schools they use English...

((why English and why not Kiswahili?))

Well because in the moment, for example, just take in East Africa, it is only Tanzania which

uses Kiswahili. Even in primary schools it is a medium of teaching language. If we want to

unite, then we will find ourselves different from other countries because they keep using

English. So, we are not different to them, we live in this world. So that is why I think we shall

miss privileges which other do have... It is also a language with the technology. We don’t

have our own technology. Of course, those who prefer Kiswahili say that we can do it. For

example, they say the Chinese have done it and the Japanese have done it. But for me, I

think it is different because they already have the technology. We don’t have our own

technology. We are still using other peoples technology. So for me it would be something, it

will not bring quicker progress...

We cannot change the matter. It is still there, whether we like it or not, we still depend on

certain things. To become a doctor, you are going maybe for further studies in US or in Britain

or in other countries, but if we don't have that knowledge I mean it will be difficult to do such

things....

There are many problems of course. This a poor country, you know, you can see we have no

teaching materials. You have, if you want something, for example, if you want a map to show

something you have to buy out of your pockets, our wanted books for supplement... . So we

have other problems also, we have other social problems. For example, you live far away

from school, you don’t have enough time. If you can help, for example school learners, you

want to learn and get home before you get the pressure of transport. So we find that there

are so many problems facing education....

Things go lower and lower. You see, when I teach I also put in some Kiswahili words so that

they understand. Maybe if it Kiswahili they would have many hands up but now they cannot

express themselves. So it is difficult to make things, to learn. You cannot even for example

say say, I usually start these students they can for example not write for themselves because

of the lack of knowledge of English. It is not for the teacher to write for them, not because

there is that problem. You cannot even say maybe they can not read, summarize and so on.

177

So there is a big problem unless unless we change the medium of instruction to English at

primary level as well....

2M: Teacher 8

((How do you feel about teaching in English?))

Sometimes it seems to be easy, sometimes no. Depending on the group of students you have, depending also on the background of the children. Because they do come from different families with different statues. Some of them use English at home, in big families. You see their English is good, some of them not at all not at all. If you have a big number of class, they are sitting in the class they don’t speak English, then it’s really difficult. But if you have a number of them who come from those families where they speak English then it’s easy to communicate and to learn well...

In the beginning in fact you have to put some Kiswahili in for better understanding, especially with the little ones. With the upper classes you can just go on. They will just understand through action, through the explanation you give you know they are understanding. It goes easier. So it is not necessary that you go to Kiswahili in the upper classes because they will just understand....

((Do you think it is possible to teach in Kiswahili? Would it be better?))

I don’t think so. I don’t think so because there the language we use in our school I call it professional. This particular language taught in school., if we are teaching in this language, you see, they are new words. Kiswahili is not very common outside. I think you will get a difficulty in understanding. They will not get you. If you would use Kiswahili, with those using terminologies which are not commonly used outside there is a problem because children would not be understood in the outside world.... Kiswahili is not a professional language, I don’t know if you get me?...

I think, in my opinion, in the end, that the biggest problem comes depending on which grade

you are teaching. Because if I look at my children now I don’t see that it is a big problem

when I use English in the classroom. No problem. I don’t know if I would use Kiswahili from

the beginning and reach at this level. I think that it also depends on the teacher. You know we

differ in our English. They use English, but you see it's different. So it depends also on the

English you use in the class...

I think, for me as a teacher, it is really helping if I know the language well and then I can

really help the children understand the content much better. When the language is not very

clear, I mean, then I really cannot handle over the material properly. So that is, I think, really

essential to really practice. You know it is the same for all the teacher to practice the

language itself before they go and using it, or to teach....The teachers in government school

do not enjoy teaching in English because they have a lack of confidence. They struggle with

the language....

178

Appendix 3: Pictures

Zanaki Secondary School

179

180

Hekima Waldorf School

181

182

Kenton High School

183

THESIS CHAPTERS, REFERENCES, APPENDIX 1&2&3

Documents