Language use in African universities

Research from studies of language use in African university contexts will now be discussed. Similar to studies of language use in African universities, while this research covers a range of national, cultural, and linguistic contexts, it may provide insight into the general trends which can be expected in Malawian universities. A key initial finding from previous research is that, as in Malawi (Kamwendo 2003), research has shown that African students do struggle with the use of English as a medium of instruction in Tanzania

(Komba 2015), Botswana (Ntereke and Ramoroka 2017), South Sudan (Barnett, Deng and Yoasa 2008) and South Africa (Tshotsho, Mumbembe and Cekiso 2015). Ferguson (2013a, p37), referring to Kenya and South Africa, notes that these difficulties lead universities to establish additional communication skills support for first year students. As noted in section 1.3.6 such communication skills courses are implemented across universities in Malawi. Additionally, this can lead at times to multilingual language practices being utilised by students and staff to aid students in their comprehension.

A key concept when investigating patterns of language use, as will be seen in the studies discussed below, is domains of language use. The concept of domain was introduced by Fishman (1965, p231) who suggests that ‘domains are defined…in terms of institutional contexts or socio-ecological occurrences’ and ‘they attempt to designate the major clusters

77 of interaction situations that occur in particular multilingual settings’. Domains are distinct clusters which are varied in such a way as may affect the language use within them. In this study, drawing on Fishman, two main domains are investigated, academic domains and social domains. Domains can be affected by a number of factors, of which Fishman (1965) suggests interlocutors, place, and topic as being particularly influential (see also Ljosland 2014). In Malawi, Kayambazinthu (2000) has shown that interlocutors, setting, topic and linguistic competency are influential in determining language choice across different domains. Similarly, linguistic proficiency has been found to be a factor in affecting

language choice amongst students in Nigerian universities (Stell and Dragojevic 2016) and Norwegian universities (Ljosland 2014).

A key concept related to the notion of domains is the concept of diglossia (Fishman 1968).

A diglossic view of language use is one in which languages are hierarchically separated

‘with each having its own functionally exclusive domain’ (Fishman 1968, p45). In the African context, this would materialise as languages with high prestige such as English, being viewed as the language of prestigious domains (e.g. education, politics) and African languages, with less prestige, would be used in less prestigious domains (such as in the home). The concept of diglossia however, is ‘increasingly…called into question’ as this functional exclusivity and separation of language into specific domains is not the case in reality (García 2009, p78). Instead, García (2009, p79, see also García 2014) suggests the concept of transglossia in which languages are not separated into specific functions but exist instead in a ‘functional interrelationship’. Instead of positioning languages in a hierarchal relationship as functional in separate domains, transglossia forefronts the

‘already mixed language worlds’ of individuals and their integrated meaning-making resources (Dovchin, Pennycook and Sultana 2018, p30). Dovchin, Pennycook and Sultana (2018) base their formulation of transglossia on Bahtkin’s (1981, 1986) notion of

heteroglossia which suggests that named, or unitary, languages in fact consist of varieties which differ both formally and socio-ideologically (Bahtkin 1981, pp271-272). As such, Dovchin, Pennycook and Sultana (2018, pp32-36) further position transglossia as a way to view language which goes beyond the formal and systematic structure of language, taking into account the social, cultural and political context and history of language. In a

transglossic approach then individuals are able to transcend both the boundaries of separate named languages and the boundaries of separate domains in which those languages are used. Again, referring to Fishman’s concept of a diglossia, ‘translanguaging calls the

78 concept of diglossia into question as: unlike diglossia, languages are no longer assigned separate territories or even separate functions, but they may co-exist in the same space’

(García 2009, p78). Transglossia thus relates more closely to translanguaging (see Section 3.2) and the notion of translanguaging spaces (see above in Section 3.3) and these concepts will be used to analyse and understand the ways in which language is used in Malawian universities.

In Morocco, Chakrani and Huang (2014) find that setting and interlocutors have a

significant influence on the choice of language used by students. The use of French is most prevalent within the class and when interacting with staff while the use of Moroccan Arabic is more prevalent outside of the class and when interacting with friends. They find that students will codeswitch when interacting with friends however the use of

codeswitching is minimal in class and when interacting with staff. They suggest that students conform to a strict monolingual French-only policy when in classes which is illustrative of the hegemonic role which French has in the Moroccan education system while local languages are viewed as inadequate. Kalmanlehto (2014) investigates students’

language use patterns in Tanzania, finding that the dominant pattern is that English is the language of the classroom and Kiswahili is the language outside of the class. However,

‘code mixing’ can also occur across domains. Also in Tanzania, Halvorsen (2010) finds that students will use both English and Kiswahili when engaging in ICT activities at university. Similarly, Njurai (2015) has shown that mathematics students in Kenya will make use of their multilingual repertoires when engaging in mathematics tasks. Njurai finds that practices vary between students. Some students would only use English during the task as they found the instructions simple to understand and were used to being taught in, and using, English when engaging with mathematics. Other students use their

multilingual repertoires to assist in the comprehension and interpretation of the tasks. In Rwanda, Marie (2013) finds that students in universities engage in coping strategies to enable them to negotiate English-medium instruction. These coping strategies involve the use of codeswitching and translanguaging when working on academic tasks in groups.

Additionally, Kinyirwanda is used as a common language amongst students with different linguistic repertoires.

79 In South Africa, Dominic (2011) finds that in classroom environments English is in

‘complete dominance’ over African languages. Dominic does however find that when students are engaged in academic work together they will codeswitch if necessary to aid their comprehension. He also suggests that, due to the multiple linguistic repertoires

amongst students, codeswitching frequently occurs in informal contexts. The dominance of English in South Africa has also been noted by the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (2015). This dominance of English is also noted by Bayiga (2016) investigating students in Uganda, who finds that English dominates linguistic practices amongst student groups. This is due to the status that English affords students as it differentiates them from those who are not university educated. It is also in line with the expectations which society has regarding how university students should speak. While this is the case Bayiga also notes that translanguaging and codeswitching will occur across domains but more commonly in informal social contexts.

Irakoze (2015) has investigated language practices in two universities in Burundi. Irakoze finds that French and English are the main languages used in formal classroom contexts and when interacting with lecturers outside of the class. This is true even at one university in which there is a monolingual French-only MOI. Kurundi is at times heard within classes as students will codeswitch when they seek to express solidarity with a lecturer (i.e. when explaining an absence). Kirundi-French codeswitching is the norm for students

communicating with one another in classroom settings and is used as a means of

performing student identity. Additionally, Irakoze notes that, at one university, it is rare that Kirundi will be used monolingually but that codeswitching will be the norm. Wills et al (2014) find that university lecturers teaching in Maths and Science will teach

predominately in French while acknowledging that only one third of their classes could fully understand the language and would minimally use Malagasy to clarify concepts for students. Kouega (2008), reporting on language use at a university in Cameroon, has found that it is notable due to the absence of any African language in the university context studied. French is the dominant language within the university; however, some courses are taught in English. Kouega does not report the presence of any multilingual language practices in the university context. Ould Amed (2012) finds that the majority of students interviewed at Nouakchott University in Mauritania consider the university to be a

bilingual community and that all signage, examinations, formal meetings and student union

80 meetings and newspapers as all produced in both Arabic and French. Ould Amed suggests that codeswitching does occur in the university.

In terms of non-standard language varieties being used within universities, Orekan (2010) reports that Nigerian Pidgin English is gradually increasing in usage on university

campuses. Rizk (2007) reports that university students in Cairo exhibit differing attitudes towards their use of a ‘youth language’. Students in prestigious degree courses, with high social capital, feel positive towards their youth language use whereas those in less

prestigious courses exhibit negative attitudes towards it. That non-standard language varieties are used within universities reflects findings discussed in Section 1.3.3 regarding Chibrazi, a ‘new language’ found in university campuses, and elsewhere, in Malawi.

This section has presented findings from previous research into language use in African universities. To summarise, there is a general pattern of language use in which English, or European languages, are the dominant languages used in formal domains. However, it has also been shown that students and staff will draw on their multilingual resources to

scaffold learning within academic domains and to assist in the completion of academic tasks.