Language Situation in Kenya

8/12/2019 Language Situation in Kenya

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-situation-in-kenya 1/17

THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IN KENYA

Nathan Oyori Ogechi,

Department of Kiswahili & Other African Languages

Introduction

I feel greatly honored to be here today to make a presentation to colleagues from USA. I

wish to thank the organizers for inviting me to speak on the very important topic of "The

Language Situation in Kenya". I say "very important" because of what happened two or

so years ago. At that time, in the plenary hall of the Margaret Thatcher library at the

main campus, the managers of Moi University and Indiana University Purdue University

Indianapolis (IUPUI) signed and exchanged documents on the strategic understanding

between the two universities. The signing was aimed at unlocking the potential forts

available in the two universities, and by extension the two countries, in order to enhance

research and knowledge, for the sake of solving problems of mankind and making this

world a better place to live in.

Falling from the foregoing, the crucial significance of my speech can be discerned on two

grounds. First is, any scholar worth his salt only unmasks a holistic picture of a

phenomenon not only in the humanities and social sciences but also in the natural

sciences, if and only if s/he has a clear grasp of the language situation of the country

studied. Second, the need to understand the language situation is particularly crucial if

that society studied is culturally diverse such as the situation is in the two countries where

Moi University and IUPUI are located, namely, Kenya and the USA respectively.

Subsequently, it behooves us to unravel the language situation in Kenya so that we (and

especially those of you from the USA) can understand who Kenyans are.

I hasten from the outset to state that a description of the language situation of Kenya is

not an easy and straight forward task as one would anticipate. This is because the

country is culturally, racially and linguistically heterogeneous with policies that are

somewhat ambiguous and this, therefore, presents a complex language situation. The



2

difficulty of description is also compounded by the ambiguity of the term "language" and

the fluidity of the term "situation". Regardless of the difficulty, a description for purposes

of this presentation is attempted. To do so I ask the following questions: what do we

mean by "situation"?. What is "language"? How distinct is the term "language" from

"dialect" and "code"? How are the three terms used either distinctively or

interchangeably in Kenya? Is it possible to plot Kenyan languages on the country's map?

If not, to what extent are the languages and their speakers overlapping or intermingling?

What script(s) is (are) used in the orthographies of the languages? How reliable or are

they? Are there endangered languages in the country? If so, are linguistic human rights

especially for minority languages observed? To what extent, has the Kenyan political

elite (class) taken deliberate affirmative action (steps) to occasion the survival and/or

violation of linguistic human rights? What language use patterns can one witness in

Kenya? What role does language play in ethnic identity negotiation? Supposing that

language is used for ethnic identification, how do politicians manipulate language and

ethnicity and thus contribute to the country's socio-econo-political (in)stability? In this

case, how strong (or weak) are language and ethnic loyalties in Kenya? The answers to

the foregoing questions will form the nexus of the presentation. I will attempt to answer

the questions as a way of unraveling the language situation in Kenya.

What is "situation"?

My understanding of the term "situation" is premised on the Macmillan English

Dictionary for Advanced Learners. According to the dictionary, "situation" is a set of

conditions that exist at a particular time in a particular place. In the present paper,

situation will be used to refer to conditions of languages as they currently exist in Kenya.

However, this does not mean that I will not explain the linguistic conditions as they have

existed in the recent past as a precursor to the present state of language affairs.

Nonetheless, whatever mention of the past that will be made here will be very brief.

Language, dialect and code

As already indicated, this essay unmasks the language situation in Kenya. It should be

appreciated that the interpretation of the term "language" at times overlaps the



3

interpretation of the term "dialect". Thus it is important that a delimitation of the two

terms is done. Trudgill (2003) argues that the term "language" is not a linguistic, but also

a political, cultural, social and historical term. Therefore to understand it, he refers to the

German sociolinguist Heine Kloss who distinguishes between Ausbau-type and Abstand-

type of languages. An Ausbau-type is a variety which derives its status as a language,

rather than a dialect, not much from its linguistic characteristics, like an Abstand-type

language, but from its social, cultural and political characteristics. These characteristics

will normally involve autonomy and standardization (Trudgill 2003:11). He gives

Norwegian and Swedish as examples of Ausbau-type of languages. Though the two have

mutual intelligibility, they are regarded as two languages because they are associated

with two separate, independent nation states, and they have traditions involving different

writing systems, grammar books and dictionaries. Hence it is possible to have so-called

two languages whose speakers can communicate effectively without recourse to an

intermediary.

On the contrary, an Abstand language is a variety of language which is considered as a

language on its own right, rather than a dialect, by virtue of being very different in its

linguistic characteristics from all other languages (Trudgill 2003:1). Such a variety is

clearly a single language because its dialects are clearly similar and unlike a dialect, it is

not related historically to another language; its grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation

are completely different from neighbouring languages.

The term "dialect", on the other hand, is a variety of language which differs

grammatically, phonologically and lexically from other varieties, and which is associated

with a particular geographical area and/or with a particular social class or status group

(Trudgill 2003:35). Subsequently, whereas a language is typically composed of a number

of dialects and standard varieties are just as much dialects as any other dialect, it has been

agreed that there are instances when what are typically dialects have been considered

languages (Hudson 1980). For example, Urdu and Hindi which are mutually intelligible

are typically dialects of one language. However, these are treated as distinct languages in

Pakistan and India, respectively. Similarly, what are typically dialects in Kenya have



4

been considered languages either in Kenya, e.g. Gikuyu, and Embu, or in neighbouring

countries, i.e. Sabaot (in Kenya) and Sebei (in Uganda). When faced with such a

distinction difficulty, sociolinguists normally opt for the middle-ground term "code". A

code is a cover term for language and dialect. I use the term code to describe the language

situation in Kenya.

Codes in Kenya

Codes have been treated as being either grammatically stable or unstable (Ogechi 2002,

2003). A grammatically stable code is one with native speakers and one whose grammar

and lexicon are fairly stable and one can study them while a grammatically unstable code

is one whose lexicon and grammar are unstable and it is therefore difficult to study it.

The situation in Kenya reflects stable and unstable codes. The stable codes have been in

existence from time immemorial while the unstable ones are recent offshoots.

The country is multilingual and multiracial. However, it is difficult to state the exact

number of codes used in the country (Ogechi 2003). According to the Constitution of

Kenya Review Commission (CKRC) (2000:95), 70 codes are used in Kenya while Webb

& Kembo-Sure (2000) put the figure at 42. The latter is the figure that is normally used

in books describing the sociolinguistic situation in Kenya. It should be observed that

these are grammatically stable codes. Typologically these codes are characterized in three

distinct families, namely Bantu, Nitotic and Cushitic Languages. Examples of Bantu

codes include, Kiswahili, Gikuyu, EkeGusii, Luhya and Kamba while Nilotic codes

comprise Kalenjin, Luo, Turkana and Maasai. Cushitic codes include Rendile, Somali

Borana and Gabra. In terms of numerical strength, two thirds of Kenyans are native

speakers of Bantu languages followed by Nilotes and Cushites in that order. These are

black African indigenous codes. As a multiracial country, other codes of exotic extraction

are also widely used with European and Asian-descent codes predominating. Precisely,

these codes include English, French, Hindi and Punjabi. A sizeable percentage of the

coastal residents also use Arabic largely through either descent or the strong influence of

Islamic culture. Other codes of oriental descent that are spoken include Japanese,



5

Chinese and Korean especially among business people from the countries concerned who

are running business enterprises in Kenya.

Presently, only two unstable codes are used in Kenya, namely Sheng and Engsh

(Abdulaziz & Osinde 1998, Ogechi 2005). According to Githiora (2002:159):

Sheng is a mixed language that emerged from the complex multilingual situation

of Nairobi city. It is spoken by young people - preadolescents to young adults -and dominates the discourses of primary and secondary school children outside

their formal classroom setting. Its syntax is basically Swahili, but throughingenious code-switching, it draws from the phonology, morphology and lexicon

of Kenyan languages spoken in the city such as, but not restricted to, Luo,Gikuyu, Maasai, Luhya, and coastal languages such as Giriama and Taita.

English is also an important source of many loanwords in Sheng.

Example (1) is an instance of Sheng. Sheng lexicon is in bold italics type:

(1)

Yule shore ana haga That girl has huge hips

Ana stua S/he is ugly.

It has been claimed that the morphosyntax of Sheng is largely based on Kiswahili

grammar (Ogechi 2005).

On the other hand, "Engsh has English as the dominant donor language, which also

provides most of the grammatical framework within which words from other languages

are blended "(Abdulaziz & Osinde 1997: 49-50). (2) is an example of Engsh:

(2) Si you akina pass for mwa morrows in your wheels, we do a swallow at them vuras.

"come for me tomorrow in your car so that we can go for a drink at the Carnivore"

(mwa - me: morrows - tomorrow; them vuras 'carnivore Restaurant') (Abdulaziz &

Osinde 1997:55).

Both Sheng and Engsh emerged in Nairobi. For a long time, it was held that Sheng and

Engsh were youth codes (Mazrui 1995, Nzunga 2002). Sheng was associated with the



6

youth of the poor eastern suburbs such as Makongeni, Eastleigh, Jericho, Buruburu etc.

while Engsh was associated with the affluent western suburbs of Muthaiga Westlands,

Loresho, Kileleshwa, Runda and Lavington among others (Abdulaziz & Osinde 1997).

However, the view that Sheng is a code for easterners has been countered since even

westerners use Sheng for solidarity with eastern youth (Mazrui 1995). Even this view

has also been overtaken by new claims which show that Sheng is not necessarily a youth

identity marker (Ogechi 2008). It could identify urban youth vis-a-vis rural youth or at

times some urban adults and urban youth could use it against rural dwellers. Indeed the

code is fast spreading into the rural areas through the electronic media and music sung by

youthful musicians. It is notable that while Sheng is still vibrant, Engsh seems to be

dying out so that even inquiries on the same are fading out.

Demography of Kenyan languages

As I indicated in the foregoing section, there are 42 stable codes in the country. The

numerical strengths of these codes are diverse. Some are spoken by over a million people

e.g. Gikuyu, Luhya, Dholuo, Kamba and Ekegusii while others have as a few as less than

one thousand speakers, namely, the Elmolo, Sengwer, Njemps and Yaaku. Hence, some

languages have less than one percent speakers. (See tables 1 and 2). Speakers of these

codes are associated with Kenya's 42 ethnic groups. That is, although language is just but

one characteristic for identifying an ethnic group (Kasfir 1976), in the Kenyan context

language is a crucial basic marker of an ethnic group. In times of crisis such as 1992,

1997, 2002 and 2007-8 during the ethnic clashes either on the eve or following national

general elections, it is code that is used to identify "colleagues" and "enemies". Apollo

(2001) illustrates how language was used during the 1997 elections campaigns when the

Gikuyu-speaking Mungiki adherents waylaid non-Gikuyu-speakers who had

accompanied the former president (Daniel Arap Moi) to a campaign rally in Nyeri. The

Mungiki adherents stopped trucks that had ferried the KANU supporters to Nyeri and

greeted them in Gikuyu - Thaai! Those who responded were spared while those who

could not were butchered.



7

Suffice it to say that it is easy to understand how the codes are spread in Kenya by simply

plotting on the Kenyan map where different ethnic communities are settled.

Table 1. Ethnic-cum-code composition of Kenya

Ethnic Groups Share of Total Population

(in Percent)

Kikuyu 21

Luhya 14

Luo 12

Kalenjin 12

Kamba 11

Kisii 6

Meru 5

Mijikenda 5

Masai 2

Others/smaller Communities* 12

Source: Elischer (2008)

Table 2: Ethnic-cum-code composition of Kenya's provinces

Province Ethnic Composition Comments

Nairobi 47% Kikuyu

16% Luhya15% Luo

15% Kamba

Kenya's most ethnically diverse region

Coast Smaller coastal

communities

96% of Kenya's Coastal communities live

in Coast

Eastern 55% Kamba

39% Meru/Embu

87% of all Kamba live in Eastern

97% of all Meru/Embu live in Eastern

Noth-Eastern 96% Somali 95% of all Somali live in North-Eastern

Rift Valley 51% Kalenjin

15% Kikuyu7% Maasai

95% of all Kalenjin live in Rift Valley

97% of all Maasai live in Rift Valley

Western 88% Luhya 80% of all Luhya live in Western Nyanza 63% Luo

31% Kisii

87% of all Luo live in Nyanza

95% of all Kisii live in Nyanza

Source: Elischer (2008)



8

The tables show that Rift Valley, Nairobi and Coast are the most ethnically and therefore

linguistically heterogeneous. Whereas the Gikuyu are native settlers of Central Province

they can also be found in Nairobi, Rift Valley and the coast among others. Indeed you

can find them settled in almost all urban centres engaged in business. Further the Gusii

(speakers of Ekegusii) are not only found in Nyanza Province but also in the Rift Valley

in places such as, Eldoret, Molo and Kitale where they have bought land and settled.

Endangered codes

There exist some indigenous Kenyan codes with few native speakers which are

endangered and threatened with extinction. They include Sengwer, Elmolo, Okiek

(Ogiek) and Suba. The threat is as a result of the existence of a strong tendency whereby

speakers of the minority codes are accommodating their speeches towards the dominant

neighbouring codes. In most cases the neighboring code is considered a carrier of

superior culture worth emulating. For example Sengwer and Okiek speakers tend to use

Nandi and Kipsigis (Kalenjin dialects) while Elmolo speakers use Turkana. Suba

speakers adore and almost exclusively use Dholuo. Thus these small codes are

threatened with extinction.

To preserve the minority codes requires deliberate efforts from government. This is

could be done through using them in preliminary grades of schooling and preparing

teaching materials in them. However, only 22 out of 42 Kenyan codes have publications

for teaching (ROK 1999). These small codes do not feature anywhere in the list of 22.

It is should be noted that the introduction of plural democracy politics in Kenya since

1991 is a blessing in disguise to the minority codes. To be declared a president, one must

garner at least 25% of the votes cast in at least five out of the eight Kenyan provinces.

Votes from these minority groups can therefore not be wished away. Politicians have

recently worked up ethnic consciousness among these groups to make them "divert" their

ethnic loyalty to the superior ethnic group's candidate as opposed to the aspiring

presidential candidate from elsewhere. This is what occurred in 1992 when KANU's



9

president Moi lost votes in the entire Luo Nyanza. Subsequently, he started wooing the

Suba who were for a long time considered as Luos. The Suba got government support to

revitalize Suba. Funds were availed to study the code and prepare primers for use in

teaching it at lower primary schools. In addition, the code has a slot of air time at the

state-owned KBC western station broadcasting in several western Kenyan codes from

Kisumu. This is about the only effort that is being done to save a dying code in Kenya.

Orthography and Code Choice

The Kenyan society was for a long time associated with the oral culture. However, with

the advent of foreign religions such as Islam and Christianity, writing was introduced. It

is safe to assert that Kiswahili was the first indigenous code to be written. This was done

in Arabic script (Mazrui & Mazrui 1995). A booming writing culture that saw many

literary works such as Inkishafi and Fumo Liyongo epics recorded existed long before the

advent of Europeans. By the time Christianity arrived, Kiswahili had spread so much that

the European missionaries' attempt to overlook it flopped. However, through the advice

of a German linguist, Karl Meinhof in the early 1890s, there was a decision to come up

with a Latin script for Kiswahili so as to de-Islamize and use it for Christian missionary

activities. This was done and to date Kiswahili and other indigenous written codes all

have a Latin script.

Language use patterns

Language use patterns deals with code choices. I now turn to code choice among

Kenyans. Understanding code choice entails unmasking the language policy and practice

in the country especially in the official domains and how this affects language patterns in

other spheres.

A triglossic pattern is the official language policy design. In this case, English, the

former colonial master's tongue is the official language that is used in education,

judiciary, government, international business, parliament, diplomacy, etc. Thus it is the

language that many people seek to learn for obvious perceived monetary gains.

Kiswahili is the co-official and national language. It is used for inter-ethnic



10

communication and (especially oral) government and parliamentary business. It is only

allowed (subject to the availability of interpreters) only in lower courts but all court

records are kept in English (Kembo-Sure & Ogechi 2006). In addition, it is a

compulsorily taught and examined subject up to the twelfth grade and is a discipline at

university level. The other indigenous Kenyan codes are for intra-ethnic communication

at home. They are used to introduce education in the rural areas up to Grade 3 when

English takes over. In urban and peri-urban areas either English or Kiswahili is used to

introduce education depending upon which one is dominant in the catchment area.

The policy therefore presupposes that any Kenyan educated up to Grade 12 is bilingual or

trilingual in English and Kiswahili plus a mother tongue if s/he was brought up in the

rural areas. With such a background, a person can negotiate several identities through

code choice. I say negotiation of identity because identification through codes among

bilinguals is never permanent. Linguistic choices are not only indices of social

negotiations of rights and obligations holding between speech participants in a given

speech situation (Myers-Scotton 1993) but also as linguistic capital that the participants

in a speech situation use either to project power relationships or to achieve pre-

determined, negotiation-free, social/political goals. Ogechi (2007) has identified three

main and possible code choices. These include code choice and identity negotiation at

home and neighborhood; code choice and identity negotiation at school/college and

work; and code choice and identity negotiation at places of leisure.

Code choice and identity negotiation at school/college and work

In this category, I discuss code choice in schools and colleges. I also focus on code

choice in places of work during working hours, breaks (e.g. lunch) and leisure places

such as eateries and sporting places. Given that a large proportion of the Kenyan

population are the youth, it logically follows that they comprise the students and a large

percentage of the Kenyan workers. Here a replay of the trichotomous identity is

witnessed.



11

In schools and colleges (including universities), code choice largely follows the language

in education policy. That is, the various mother tongues are only languages of education

for the first three years of elementary education in rural areas while Kiswahili is used in

urban and peri-urban schools. After Grade 4, English takes over as the medium of

instruction while Kiswahili is a compulsorily taught and examined subject up to Grade

12.

In reality, however, policy and practice are not always in tandem (Wolff 2002, Kembo-

Sure & Ogechi 2006 a & b). In many primary schools, children have a 'they-code'

(English) forced on them through rewards and punishment (Ogechi 2003) for using or not

using English. The pupils in turn resort to a 'we-code' in the absence of teachers, outside

classrooms. That is, they use mother tongue, Kiswahili and at times codeswitching

interaction among university students:

(3) Setting: Two women, Caro, a university student and Emi, a former university student,

are talking about the university admission of mature students in Kenya.

Emi: [Imagine our time we never used] [to have mature entrants]

Caro: Ai!

Emi: [Never!] [They started coming which years?] [In fact our year is when] [[therewas one one.]] [You know like that time...]

Caro: [You maliza-ed when?]finish - PST When did you finish?

Emi: [After that Kales started.]

Kalenjins 'Kalenjins started (joining university)'

[ Ba-ich-ire]

3PL-full-PRF 'They are many.'

Caro: [ Ba-ich-ire]3PL-full-PRF 'They are many'



12

Emi: [[In fact abaange] [kwanza education they are many.]]

[[You find them in a group] [you can't know if they are students]](Ogechi 2002:101-102)

Notice that the interlocutors here are native speakers of Ekegusii and could easily identify

with Ekegusii. However, in this conversation, they opt for codeswitching as the 'we-

code'. If they found themselves in a multi-ethnic setting, they could either opt for

Kiswahili-English codeswitching, Kiswahili-English-Sheng codeswitching or just use

Sheng. The three code choices are crucial in building a neutral identity.

When the youth become workers, another brand of trichotomous identity sets in. Here, it

is noted that although English and Kiswahili are the official and therefore 'we-codes' in

Kenya, their being we-codes depends on the context of situation. As Myers-Scotton

(1993) and Ogechi (2002) note, it is possible to transact official business among public

officers and even between a pubic officer and service seeker if the parties concerned

share a mother tongue. In this case, Kiswahili and English are the 'they-codes' and not

languages for negotiating and projecting an identity of intimacy. However, the choice of

a 'code-in-between' is witnessed both at work and especially during breaks (i.e. lunch

break) when the youth use Kiswahili-English or Kiswahili-English-Sheng codeswitching.

This builds bridges and assists to neutralize polarization. The building of inter-ethnic

bridges is further strengthened when Sheng is used at the eateries.

Code choice and identity negotiation at places of leisure

Places of leisure here refer to gymnasia, sports stadia and even clubs or disco halls.

These are places the youth retire to after work or on weekend. It cannot be gainsaid that

meetings at leisure places are the basis for intra- and inter-ethnic bonding. It has been

noted that intra-ethnic conversations emphasize ethnic identity if the participants share a

mother tongue and they have the ability to speak it. However, just like in other inter-

ethnic interactions, the vernaculars are deemed 'they-codes' that create social distance.

The 'codes-in-between' are English, 'Kiswahili, codeswitching and Sheng. English is

particularly used among the elite. Otherwise, Kiswahili, codeswitching and Sheng are



13

the most neutral. Codeswithing is particularly handy as an exploratory choice when the

participants meet for the first time. Nevertheless, the choice of Sheng has proved to be

most crucial for inter-ethnic building bridges in Kenya. Sheng has been used not only in

conversations but also in advertisements and music. The following is a commercial

advertisement for HIV/AIDS prevention that is accompanied by rap music:

(4) Context: On the need to use a condom

DJ Pinyee ana yake. Jee una yako?Pinyee, the DJ, has his (condom). Do you have yours?

This advertisement is for people of all ages but it strongly captures the youth's attention

due to the background rap music. The sellers of condoms and those engaged in HIV and

AIDS campaigns know that they can reach the youth if they identify themselves with the

youth through the youth culture (the language and rap music). That is why the adverts

employ them. Programmes in most FM radio stations and television stations targeting the

youth play rap music. Indeed most of the clubs that the youth frequent play the music

authored by fellow youthful rappers.

Language use and political (in) stability in Kenya

I have already indicated how language is used for ethnic identity in Kenya. Ethnic

identity has been found to be crucial in the formation of political parties and political

alignments in multi-party Kenya since 1992 (Elischer 2007). Perhaps the only time that

ethnicity counted least in the voting patterns was in the 2002 general elections. Even

then several ethnic groups ganged up in two major voting blocks while the third block

attracted voters from one ethnic group to a presidential candidate from that ethnic group.

A repeat of the 2002 voting pattern was once again seen in 2007. This time however

negative ethnicity was manipulated. The manipulation began in 2005 during the run up

to the referendum votes for the draft constitution. There were two groups then. One

group, using the banana symbol, supported the enacting of the referendum. This was the

group supported by the president's ethnic Gikuyu speakers and their allies. The second

group, had the symbol of an orange and was opposed to the enacting of the draft





15

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the description relates to the way that language is

the most crucial aspect of identity negotiation in Kenya. While this is not a problem

linguistically, the paper has shown how politicians manipulate negative ethnicity to

achieve narrow selfish ends that end up polarizing the country. The sad part of the

polarization is the post-election violence that visited the country at the end of 2007 and

beginning of 2008. It is incumbent upon all and sundry to shun such negative ethnicity

for the sake of national harmony and fast socio-economic and political development.

List of abbreviations used

ROK Republic of Kenya

REFERENCES

Abdulaziz, M. & K. Osinde. 1997. Sheng and Engsh in Nairobi. International Journal of

the Sociology of Languag, 125: 1-21.

Constitution of Kenya Review Commission. 2000. The Main Report of the Constitution

of Kenya Review Commission 18th September, 2002.

Elischer, S. 2008. Ethnic Coalitions of Convenience and Commitement: Political parties

and party systems in Kenya. German Institute of Global and Area Studies

(GIGA) Working Papers No. 68.

Githiora, C. 2002. Sheng: Peer language, Swahili dialect or emerging Creole? Journal of

African Cultural Studies 15, 2: 159-81.

Kasfir, N. 1976. The Shrinking Political Arena. Participation and Ethnicity in African

Politics with a Case Study of Uganda. Berkeley:- University of Califonia Press.

Kembo-Sure, S. Mwangi & N. O. Ogechi. 2006a. Language Planning for Development

in Africa. Eldoret. Moi University Press.

------------------ 2006b. Language planning and language reform in Kenya. In: Kembo-

Sure, S. Mwangi & N. O. Ogechi. 2006a. Language Planning for Development

in Africa. Eldoret. Moi University Press.

KNHR 2006. Behaving Badly: Deception, Chauvinism and Waste during the Referendum

Campaigns. Nairobi:



16

Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced learners. 2000. International Student

Ediction. London.

Mazrui, A. 1995. Slang and codeswitching in Kenya. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapier 42:

168-79.

Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nzunga, M. P. K. 2002. Sheng & English: The booming offspring of Linguistic

Intermarriage. In: I. Rissom (ed.) Language in Contrast. Bayreuth: Eckhard

Breitinger.

Ogechi, N. O. 2002. Trilingual CodeSwitching in Kenya: Evidence from Ekegusii,

Kiswahili. English and Sheng Ph.D discertation: Hamburg: Hamburg University.

------------------- 2003. On language rights in Kenya. Nordic Journal of African Studies

(2,3: 277-295)

_____________ 2005. Does Sheng have a Kiswahili grammar? Annual Publication in

African Linguistics (APAL) 3:5-25.

______________ 2007. Building Bridges Through Trichotomous Youth Identities in

Kenya; Evidence from Code Choice. In: K. Njogu & G. Oluoch - Olunya (eds)

Cultural Production and Social Change in Kenya: Building Bridges. Nairobi:

Twaweza Communications.

------------------- 2008. Sheng as a youth identity marker: reality or misconception. In:

K. Njogu (ed.) Culture, Performance and Identity: Paths to Communication in

Kenya. Nairobi: Twaweza Communication.

ROK. 1999. Totally Integrated Quality Education and Training (TIQET). Report of the

Commission of Inquiry into the Educational System of Kenya. Nairobi:

Government Printer.

Trudgill, P. 2003. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Webb, V. & Kembo-Sure. 2000. African Vooices; An Introduction to the Languages and

Linguistics of Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa,

Wolff, H. E. 2002. The heart of the ‘African Question’ in education. In: F. Owino (ed.).Speaking African; African languages for Rducation and Development. CapeTown: CASAS.



17

Documents

Language Situation in Kenya