SOCIOLOLINGUISTIC SURVEYS - Centre for Language Studies

SOCIOLOLINGUISTIC SURVEYS
OF
FOUR MALAWIAN LANGUAGES:
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
EDUCATION
University
of Malawi

CENTRE FOR LANGUAGE STUDIES
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 4
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4
3 CHIYAWO SURVEY 7
3.1 METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION 7
3.2 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE SURVEY 8
3.3 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 8
3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS 8
3.5 LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND 9
3.6 VARIETIES OR DIALECTS OF CHIYAO 9
3.7 CHIYAO AND EDUCATION 12
3.8 SOME GENERAL OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSIONS 17
3.9 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 18
4 CHITUMBUKA SURVEY 20
4.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 20
4.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES 20
4.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 20
4.4 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 20
4.4.1 POPULATION 20
4.4.2 PROCEDURE 21
4.4.3 DATA COLLECTORS 21
4.4.4 DATA ANALYSIS 22
4.4.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE SURVEY 22
4.4.6 SOME DEMOGRAPHIC CHARECTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS 22
4.5 RESPONSES FROM VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS 23
2

4.5.1 TEACHER’S RESPONSES 23
4.5.1.1 OTHER DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE 28
4.5.1.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION 32
4.5.2 PARENTS’/GUARDIANS’ RESPONSES 32
4.5.2.1 OTHER DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE 35
4.5.2.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION 39
4.5.3 PUPILS’ RESPONSES 40
4.5.3.1 OTHER DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE 46
4.5.3.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION 49
4.6 SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 50
4.7 CONCLUSIONS 51
4.8 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 52
5 CHILOMWE SURVEY 53
5.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 53
5.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES 53
5.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 53
5.4 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 54
5.4.1 POPULATION 54
5.4.2 PROCEDURE 54
5.4.3 DATA COLLLECTORS 54
5.4.4 DATA ANALYSIS 55
5.4.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE SURVEY 55
5.4.6 SOME DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS 55
5.5 RESPONSES FROM VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS 56
5.5.1 PUPILS’ RESPONSES 56
5.5.1.1 SUMMARY OF PUPILS’ RESPONSES 59
5.5.2. PARENTS’/GAURDIANS’ RESPONSES 60
5.5.2.1 SEX 60
5.5.2.2 QUALIFICATIONS 60
5.5.2.3 VARITIES OF CHILOMWE 61
5.5.3 TEACHERS’ RESPONSES 63
5.5.3.1 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY 64
5.5.4 OTHER RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSES 65
5.5.4.1 SUMMARY 65
5.6 CONCLUSIONS 65
5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 66
3

6 CHISENA SURVEY 67
6.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 67
6.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES 67
6.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 67
6.4 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 68
6.4.1 POPULATION 68
6.4.2 PROCEDURE 68
6.4.3 DATA COLLECTORS 68
6.4.4 DATA ANALYSIS 69
6.4.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURIG THE SURVEY 69
6.4.6 SOME DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS 69
6.5 RESPONSES FROM VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS 71
6.5.1 PUPILS’ RESPONSES 71
6.5.1.1 SUMMARY OF PUPILS’ RESPONSES 75
6.5.2 PARENTS’/GUARDIANS’ RESPONSES 75
6.5.2.1 SEX 76
6.5.2.1 QUALIFICATIONS 76
6.5.2.3 VARIETIES 77
6.5.2.4 SUMMARY OF PARENTS’/GUARDIANS’ RESPONSES 78
6.5.3 TEACHERS’ RESPONSES 78
6.5.3.1 DISCUSSION 79
6.5.4 “OTHER” RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSES 80
6.5.4.1 DISCUSSION 81
6.6 CONCLUSIONS 81
6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (MOE) 81
7 FINAL REMARKS 82
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 83
4

A Note from the Director on Sociolinguistic Surveys on Chiyao, Chitumbuka,
Chilomwe and Chisena
It has been established on the basis of empirical evidence from research that Children
learn better in their mother tongue and that mother tongue education, at least in the
formative years of the child’s education, is the most optimal alternative. However, the
formulation of a meaningful language policy with emphasis on mother tongue education
in a multilingual country like Malawi crucially depends on the availability of accurate
and realiable sociol­linguistic data.
5

The Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture in Malawi has, since 1994, recognised the
need for the introduction of mother tongue education in the first four years of primary
school. To this end, it requested the Centre for Language Studies to provide it with
appropriate language data on which to base its policy.
The Centre for Language Studies submitted research proposals to GTZ/MITTEP for
funding to carry out sociolinguistic surveys on M alawi’s major languages other than
Chichewa viz, Chiyao, Chitumbuka, Chilomwe and Chisena. GTZ/MITTEP genereously
approved funding for the projects and in 1996, the first survey was carried out on Chiyao
followed by the Chitumbuka survey the following year. The Chilomwe and Chisena
surveys were done in 1998. The surveys yielded very interesting sociolinguistic data on
the language situation in Malawi particularly the attitudes of pupils, teachers and
parents/guardians towards the use of local languages in primary education. The bulk of
the results from the surveys were used at the first national symposium on language policy
in Malawi which was held in Mangochi from 8 th – 10 th March 1999.
On behalf of the Center for Language Studies I would like to sincerely thank
GTZ/MITTEP for the generous financial and material support which made it possible for
the surveys to be done. Special gratitude also goes to Dr B. Sandhaas of GTZ/MITTEP
for his professional interest and commitment to the issue of mother tongue education
which made it possible for the Centre’s requests and proposals to be easily appreciated
and supported.
The special efforts of the Centre’s Deputy Director, Gregory Kamwendo,
linguists/language specialists from the University of Malawi’s Chancellor College and
the general support from the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture are also being
acknowledged.
Dr AI D. Mtenje
Director – Center for Language Studies
6

1 INTRODUCTION
The availability of accurate, reliable information on a country’s language situation can
wield a certain influence on policy decisions and be of enormous value in planning and
carrying out policies. Furthermore, a description of the language situation in a country
yields a useful and important body of data for sociol scientists with varied interests. By
1996, in Malawi, very little had been done since the 1996 Population Census to ascertain
the number of languages, peoples’ attitudes to the use of local languages in education, the
electronic and print media, the judiciary, parliament etc. So little was known with
certainty about these attitudes and what influences them and how much more needs to be
done for it to be useful in policy­making, in education, and in the rural and urban
development programmes.
Realising the crucial role sociolingusitic surveys play in language planning/policy
formulation, four language surveys were conducted between 1996 and 1998. The
sociolinguistic surveys had a special reference to education in that their main objective
was to determine the acceptability, relevance and practicalities of using mother tongues
or vernacular languages as media of instruction in primary schools. The need to have
relevant data on this subject was strengthened when on 28 th March 1996, the Ministry of
Education directed that from then onwards, standards 1 – 4 would use mother tongues or
vernacular languages as media of instruction. A policy statement had been issued before
research and relevant consultations with stakeholders had been done.
As stated earlier, four language surveys were conducted in Malawi between 1996 and
1998. The surveys covered Chiyao (in 1996). Chitumbuka (in 1997), Chilomwe and
Chisena (in 1998). The pioneer survey, the Chiyao survey, was carried out by linguists
and language experts from the Faculty of Humanities at Chancellor College, University
of Malawi; and the Malawi Institute of Education (MIE). The remaining three surveys
were conducted by the University of Malawi’s Centre for Language Studies (CLS).
Financial annd technical support for all surveys came from GTZ/MITTEP.
This report presents findings and recommendations made by the four surveys. The
presentation will be as follows: Section 2 will be a review of literature which will be
followed in subsequent sections by language specific reports on: Chiyao, Chitumbuka,
Chilomwe, and Chisena. Each language specific report carries general and specific
ojectives, the study design and methodology, research findings, recommendations and
7

conclusions.
1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The use of mother tongues or vernacular languages as media of instruction is not a new
practice in Malawi’s education system. During the colonial era, the media of instruction
in the first four classes of primary school education (Sub A to Standard 2) were
Chichewa (then called Chinyanja) and Chitumbuka. Chitumbuka was later removed after
Chichewa was declared Malawi’s national language in 1968. Chichewa’s role as a
language of instruction at the lower levels of primary school education was maintained.
In March 1996, Malawi’s Ministry of Education released a circular letter which
recommended mother tongue instruction. The policy triggered a heated debate among
parents, teachers, scholars, policy makers and other interested groups. Some of the
arguments made against the new policy can be summarized as follows:
given that urban areas have children from various linguistic origins, which
language(s) would be used as media of instruction?
mother tongue instruction will force teachers to work in their areas of origin, hence
creating regionalism or tribalism.
the implementation of the mother tongue would seriously retard the learning of
English.
teaching and learning in the mother tongue would be expensive because Malawi has
an ailing economy. The production of teaching and learning materials would require
a lot of money.
mother tongue instruction would further divide the already tribally fragmented
country.
Linguists and educational psychologists agree that mother tongue instruction in the early
years of education has proved to be very beneficial to children’s cognitive development.
It is also generally agreed that children learn new languages faster than adults. Children
also tend to learn concepts better through a language they commonly speak. Prah (1995a,
b) indicates that studies in many countries have shown that basic education is one factor
which contributes positively to economic development. However, this cannot be
achieved if learning is done in an alien language. No country has achieved sustainable
development economically, socially, morally, intellectually, and even spiritually by using
an alien language (ADEA, 1996).
The mother tongue policy has had both positive and negative results. In Nigeria for
8

instance, a mother tongue literacy project launched in 1970 indicated that children taught
in Yoruba from grade 1 to 6 were no less proficient in English than their counterparts
who were taught in English in the last three years of primary education. The children
who were taught in their mother tongue scored higher than their counterparts both
academically and cognitively (Elugbe, 1996).
Although there are some success stories of mother tongue instruction in some African
countries, the policy is sometimes not seccessful in many other African countries because
of its finacial implications and some sociolinguistic constraints. In Kenya, for instance,
the use of Dholuo as a medium of instruction in Muanza has not been a success. The first
obstacle is the parental negative attitude towards the use of the mother tongue. Parents
want their children to be taught through the English language. Lack of teaching and
learning materials has also affected the policy negatively. Although the Kenyan Institute
of Education embarked on a mass production of teaching materials, the teachers
themselves were not trained.
A study of the orthographical problems in the written Dholou language was not carried
out. Tonal and lexical variations for the different Dholou dialects resurfaced later after
books had already been printed (Owino, 1996).
Language planning is an area that has received very little attention by the Malawian
government. Language related policies are often formulated and implemented with little
or no consultations with professionals. The mother tongue education policy was
formulated and announced for implementation before proper groundwork had been done.
Chumbow (1996) in his assessment of the different theoretical levels of language
planning based on the canonical model argues that sociolinguistic fact findings are central
to any meaningful language policy formulation. He also advises that language planning
in Africa should not be done in a top bottom style. Since the 1960’s a lot of language
policies in Africa have merely been continuations of colonial practices affected without
prior examination of their goals and means of implementation.
Chumbow (1996) contends that status planning can best be achieved by using
sociolinguistic fact findings. In Malawi there has been a need for a national
sociolinguistic survey to be carried out in order for the language policy makers to assign
judicious, rational and well motivated functions to the various languages of the nation.
Among other things, a general profile of such a sociolinguistic survey would include:
­ the identification of the language of the country.
9

­ the geographical distribution of the languages and their dialects.
­ mutual intelligibility between speech forms.
­ demographic information i.e. numbers of speakers of each language.
­ speakers attitudes towards the use of their languages in the various domains of
their lives.
In the sections which follow, we present summaries of the four Sociolinguistic Surveys
which were carried out in Malawi on the major languages of Malawi.
2 CHIYAO SURVEY
The aim of the survey, the results of which are reported here, was to investigate current
attitudes to Chiyao among Yao speakers in Mangochi, Machinga, Dedza, Salima,
Nkhotakota, Blantyre, Zomba and Chiradzulu. This socio­linguistic survey took place
between the 9 th to 28 th April, 1996. Specifically, the survey wanted to investigate whether
native Yao speakers in Chiyao speaking areas would favour the introduction of Chiyao as
a medium of instruction in primary school. An equally important question was to find
out Chiyao speakers’ attitude to the national language, Chichewa; that is to discover
whether it has made headway since it was made the national and a lingua franca for
different ethnic groups or ever betwen members of the same ethnic group.
3.1 METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
Primary data for the survey were gathered through interactive interviews with some 862
subjects in Nkhotakota, Salima, Dedza, Machinga, Mangochi, Zomba Chiradzulu and
Blantyre over a period of three weeks. In the districts sampled in the study, areas or
villages were also randomly sampled. This random sampling also applied to the subjects
interviewed. The subjects were selected on the basis that they spoke Chiyao. For data
collection a written socio­linguistic questionnaire administered by field workers was
used. This instrument was designed to obtain first general information concerning
origins, sex, age, maritual status, level of education, religion and employment. Secondly,
it was designed to obtain specific information on Chiyao, i.e. ability to speak Chiyao,
10

level of understanding, whether the language should be used in school as a medium of
instruction, print or electrocic media, and the general attitude people have towards the
Chichewa as a national language.
Three data collection instruments were used during the survey, a structured questionnaire
which mostly comprised closed items and a few open ended questions. Researchers read
out questions to which subjects responded. The answers were recorded on the
questionnaire by the researchers. The second instrument was a Chiyao wordlist which
was recorded on an audio tape. Subjects were required to listen to words read out in one
by one on audio tape and to give a Chichewa or Chiyao meaning. Finally a recorded
Chiyao passage was played to the subjects. After listening to the passage, each subject
was required to explain in either Chichewa or Chiyao what the passage was about. This
was done to prevent subjects from helping each other. This was intended to determine
level of understanding and knowledge of Chiyao of the subjects.
The three data collection instruments were first pilot tested in some of the districts in
which the survey was conducted. The questionnaire were subsequently reviewed and
revised in readiness for the main survey.
All interviews were conducted by trained interviewers with knowledge of Chiyao. This
was done because it helps to lower resistance to the questions asked and raised the value
of responses. All data collected were edited and coded, and then entered into a computer
to obtain frequency, percentage and cross­tabulation tables.
3.2 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE SURVEY
In the planning stage it was envisaged that 1,500 subjects would be interviewed. In the
event only 862 people were actually interviewed. A number of factors contributed to this
failure.
First, in the planning stages, not enough time was allocated to travelling to the research
areas and actual field work. It was assumed that travelling would be relatively easy. In
the event it was discovered that the roads were in bad condition and in some areas plainly
inaccessible.
For example, after travelling for three hours on a bad road from their base at Michesi to
Makanjira, the researchers were forced to return because a bridge was in a state of
disrepair. This was a common occurence. Thus more time was spent negotiating the
11

oad hazards than doing actual research.
Secondly, a major contributing factor was the unreliability of the research vehicles. The
vehicles broke down more frequently than expected. In the event no less than five
working days were wasted because of breakdowns. Vuluable time was, therefore, wasted
waiting for back­up service from Blantyre or Lilongwe where hiring firm’s offices are
located.
3.3 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
The results of the investigation will now be presented section by section, before more
general observations are made.
3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
Areas of interest here are age, sex, employment, level of education and religion.
The age range of respondents was between 5 and over 65 with the highest concentration
between 16 to 25. Of the total number of respondents 57.7% were male while 42.3%
were female, 29.9% of the men were married while 26.3% were unmarried. 22% of the
women were married while 13.7% were unmaried; 4.1% were widowed and 1.2% were
divorced and other 1.2% undocumented.
In terms of education the respondents ranged from farmers to businessmen. The highest
figures being those of farmers (28.1%) followed by business (15.6%) and other
employment (11.6%). 42.7% of the respondents were recorded unemployed. This figure,
it should be pointed out, also includes pupils.
Education ranged from primary school (63.3%) through secondary school (10.3%) to
tertiary (0.5%) and other (0.3%). Of those interviewed, 25.9% had enjoyed no education
whatsoever. The data also clearly showed that the majority of the respondents had
education of the primary school level.
As regards area of origin, the majority of the respondents had homes in the Chiyao
speaking areas. The distribution was as follows: 29.8% from Mangochi, 12.9% from
Machinga, 9.2% from Zomba, 11.0% from Blantyre, 9.3% from Dedza 7.0% from
Salima, 9.3 from Nkhotakota, 10.9% from Chiradzulu and a very low 0.6% from
basically non­Yao speaking districts of Mulanje, Rumphi, Kasungu and Lilongwe.
12

In relation to religions affiliations, 71.7% indicated they were Muslims and the remaining
28.3% were Christians. The Christians break down into the following denominations:
Catholics 6.4%, CCAP 6.5%, Seventh Day Adventist 3.1%, Church of Christ 3.8%,
Angican 2.0%, Assemblies of God 1.0% and other minor denominations 1.9%. 3.5% of
the respondents had no identifiable religion.
3.5 LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND
Data showed that an overwhelming 93.4% of the respondents could speak Chiyao. It also
showed that Chiyao was the mother tongue or first language of 83.4% of the respondents.
Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they spoke other languages. An
overwhelming 94.7% said they spoke Chichewa and 5.3% did not speak any other
language. As to what language they frequently used, 66.2% indicated Chiyao, 30.2%
said Chichewa, 0.7% Chitumbuka, 0.1% Chilomwe, 0.1% Chisena, 0.1% Chitonga, 0.1%
Chinkhonde, 0.1% Chindali, 0.2% Chingoni, and 2.1% were unrecorded.
It may be noted from the above figures that the most generally used language, apart from
Chiyao is Chichewa. This pattern has been to a considerable extent determined by
political factors. Since Chichewa is the lingua franca in Malawi (although not
necessarily a first language for everyone) it enjoys the status of “national language”
which every individual needs to know in order to survive in the wider political and social
circles.
Interestingly, the data show that although Chiyao is the mother tongue of most
respondents, an overwhelming 94.7% also speak Chichewa, which leads to the
conclusion that since its declaration in 1968 as a national language, Chichewa is gaining
ground. This becomes even clearer if the results of this survey are compared with those
of the 1966 Population Cencus.
3.6 VARIETIES OR DIALECTS OF CHIYAO
Subjects were also asked to name the variety of Chiyao they spoke. 75.4% claimed that
they did not know that the variety of Chiyao they spoke had a name whereas 15.9%
13

indicated that they knew that the variety spoken had a name, 31.4% indicated that they
did not know the actual name. 5.8% said that the name of the Chiyao they spoke was
Chiyao, whereas 4.9% called it Chiyao Nsanga, ie. hybrid Chiyao.
Asked as to whether the respondents knew other varieties of Chiyao, 24% claimed they
did whereas 68.8% did not know. On being asked to name other varieties of Chiyao,
17.5% named Mangochi Yao, and 6.4% named Chiyao Nsanga. It should be noted too
that 0.1% to 0.9% of the respondents indicated that they knew that other types of Chiyao
existed in the country.
Respondents were also asked to name the areas where the other types of Chiyao are
spoken, 16.5% mentioned Mangochi, 2.7% Zomba, 1.6% Makanjira, 1.3% Namwera,
1.2% Mozambique and 1.0% Mozambique. It should be observed that both Namwera
and Makanjira are in Mangochi.
The survey also wanted to know whether the accent of Chiyao speaker can be used to
determine a person’s place of origin, 75.2% of the respondents indicated that they could
indicate locate an individual’s place of origin through the accent.
For obvious reasons speakers of Chiyao interviewed knew that the language they spoke is
called Chiyao. However, what is of interest are the answers which the same speakers
gave when asked about the variety or dialect of the Chiyao they spoke. It should be
recalled that 75.4% indicated that they did not know the name of their variety of Chiyao.
Despite the fact that 75.4% of the respondents did not know the name of the variety of
Chiyao they spoke, 24% said they did. It is also worth observing that 68.8% of the
respondents to the same question said they did not know any varieties of Chiyao. The
68.8% perhaps reconfirms the 7.5% who indicated that their Chiyao had no name. It is
perhaps difficult to know other people’s dialects when one is not even aware of one’s
own.
What appears to be the case however is that although many respondents stated that they
did not know the name of the variety of the Chiyao they spoke, they were still aware that
the language has varieties.
Some notable dialectal variations were observed in the use of certain phonemes, that is to
say, distinctive speech sounds. For example in Namwera Chiyao where in other dialects
14

there is l and w are repalced by d and b respectively. For instance:
l and d
Word
liso (yesterday/eye)
ugali (thick porridge)
litaka (soil)
Namwera Chiyao
diso
ugadi
ditaka
w and b
m’wutuche (run)
m’wale
m’butuche
m’bwale
Some variations were also observed in the vocabulary. In Salima and Nkhotakota the
common word for fingernails is ngose while in Mangochi the word in common usage is
ngalawesa. Significant variation was observed in the word used for a group chiwanja, in
the survey’s wordlist. The word was not commonly used. Instead, alternatives were used
in different areas. In Dedza, Tambala area, the word in common usage was unganya,
while in other areas the word often used is the word borrowed from Chichewa gulu. A
few old people in Namwera mentioned likuga. Another word which had variations is
kuliunde (heaven/sky).
In areas such as Mangochi, Dedza, Nkhotakota and Salima the favoured word was
kwiinani.
Variations were also observed in the use of the second person plural/honorific pronoun
“you”. In Machinga wao is used while in Namwera walakwe is commonly used.
These variations should be taken into consideration when issues of standardization of
orthography and compilation of dictionaries arise.
The high percentage of respondents who named Mangochi Chiyao points to the
significant fact that Mangochi Chiyao is widely known throughout the Chiyao speaking
communities in Malawi. This fact implies that were the Mangochi variety selected for
teaching in schools and for use in the print and electronic media, its acceptance will be
guaranteed.
Following the wide knowledge about Mangochi Chiyao, the next better known variety of
the language is Machinga Chiyao. This again points towards the possible acceptability of
the variety were it to be a candidate for standardization.
15

The respondents were also asked to indicate how they would tell the home origin of a
speaker by simply listening to him. 69.4% indicated that they would be able to tell by the
speaker’s accent and pronunciation of words. It was clear in the actual surveys, however,
that the respondents had difficulties finding suitable words in the vernacular to describe
accent or pronunciation. It is possible, therefore, that this figure could be higher.
Another question attempted to solicit information on where the best Chiyao is spoken.
This is a very important question because the information it provides may be used to
select a widely accepted dialect of Chiyao that could be codified and elevated to standard
dialect. The results are shown in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1: WHERE THE BEST CHIYAO IS SPOKEN
Place
Mangochi
Machinga
Mozambique
Makanjira
Zomba
Chiradzulu
Salima
Namwera
Katuli
Jalasi
Dedza
Blantyre
Chimwala
Mulanje
Mchema
Don’t know
% Respondents
59.6
10.6
8.1
4.9
3.6
2.4
1.7
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
3.5
As the results in Table 1 show the Mangochi variety of Chiyao was felt by 59.6% of the
respondents to be the best dialect. This figure was followed by 10.6% of the respondents
who felt that the dialect spoken in Machinga is the best. It was interesting to note during
16

the survey that people from outside Mangochi did not feel that their own Chiyao was
good enough compared to the Mangochi dialect. Very often people tend to be
linguacentric and feel that their own dialect is the best. This was not the case here.
A cross­tabulation of the respondents’ home origin on the one hand and their choice of
what they consider to be the best dialect of Chiyao, on the other, indicates that one’s
home origin did not influence one’s choice of good Chiyao. For instance, with the
exception of 187 respondents from Mangochi who felt that their own dialect is the best,
the rest were from Machinga, Zomba, Blantyre and Dedza. Notice that it is mostly
Southern region districts that chose Mangochi dialect while the Central districts involved
in the survey chose Machinga dialect as the best.
Part of the reason why the Mangochi dialect was favoured is that a lot of the Yao feel that
Mangochi is close to Mozambique, the original home of the Yao people, and has,
somewhat maintained the original dialect. As a matter of fact, 8.1% of the respondents
cited the dialect spoken in Mozambique as the best. This choice too underscores the
point that proximity to or continued contact with one’s original home matters in cases of
dialect maintenance. There were few respondents (4.9%) who felt that the best Chiyao
was spoken in Makanjira because of its proximity to Mozambique. This small group
viewed the Chiyao spoken at Mangochi boma as being less than “perfect” because of the
influence of urban life and its associated multilingualism.
Related to the question of the best dialect of Chiyao discussed above, respondents were
also asked to assess whether the Chiyao dialect they spoke was heavily influenced by
other languages. A little more than half of them (51.0%) felt that their Chiyao was a
hybrid dialect while 45.2% thought they spoke good Chiyao. The rest either did not
know or did not respond to the question. This pattern, again, is a little surprising because
generally people tend to have very strong and positive attitudes towards their own
language or dialect. Although, there is no declared or written standard Chiyao against
which respondents assessed their own idiolects, it seems possible that they compared it
against some perceived and idealized dialect.
Chichewa was cited by 41.1% of the respondents as the language that has affected those
who claimed that their Chiyao has been mixed with other languages. The choice of
Chichewa is not very surprising since this is the only language in Malawi that is spoken
widely as a national language and used in the school system.
A number of reasons were given as to why Chiyao got mixed up with Chichewa and,
indeed, other languages. The chief reason, however, was the effect of ethnolinguistic
17

intermixing (25.9%). Malawi is well known for its high degree of ethnolingustic
intermixing and most people therefore grow up speaking two or more languages.
It should be noted, however, that the question was probably difficult for most
respondents. This acounts for the high percentage (74.1%) of those who could not
explain the reasons.
3.7 CHIYAO AND EDUCATION
Another section of the questionnaire asked the respondents if they would like Chiyao to
be used as a language of instruction in schools. This question was meant to solicit the
respondents’ attitudes towards their language given the impending introduction of mother
tongue education in the school system in Malawi. It should also be observed that the Yao
are among people with the lowest literacy levels in the country. The results indicate that
61.6% of the respondents were in favour of Chiyao becoming a language of instruction in
Yao speaking areas. This is a strong and positive attitude that the Yao have towards their
own language.
A cross­tabulation of the respondents’ level of education against their choice of whether
or not Chiyao should be a language of instruction brings out some interesting patterns.
TABLE 2:
LEVEL OF EDUCATION VS SUPPORT FOR CHIYAO AS A
LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION
YES NO DON’T KNOW NON
RESPONSE
%
Not Educated 223 25.9
Standard 1­5 15 37.5
Standard 6­8 220 25.5
Form 1­2 55 6.4
Form 3­4 34 3.9
18

Above form 4 1 3 0.5
Other 3 0.3
Those who want Chiyao to be introduced as a language of instruction were curiously
mostly those who have never been to school (25.9%) and those who have only gone up to
standard five (37.5%). Those educated from standard six through secondary school
education (36.3%) did not find it necessary to have Chiyao in the school system.
It is very possible that the educated respondents were not thinking in terms of the
necessity of introducing Chiyao in the school system but rather the logistics and
associated problems. More importantly it reflects the generally low opinion that educated
Malawians have towards their own languages. It is observed that the more educated one
is the more contemptious one towards the local languages. In fact, one is more likely to
find educated Malawians conversing in English than their own languages. It is also
possible to argue that the low figures among the educated respondents who were not in
favour of introducing Chiyao in schools is indicative of the extent to which they have
accepted English and Chichewa and the only school languages.
A follow up question sought to elicit information on the type of Chiyao to be taught in
schools. The results are shown in Table 3 below:
TABLE 3:
VARIETY OF CHIYAO TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS
NAME
% OF RESPONDENTS
Mangochi Chiyao
Machinga Chiyao
Makanjira Chiyao
Zomba Chiyao
Chiradzulu Chiyao
Mozambique Chiyao
Dedza Chiyao
Namwera Chiyao
Katuli Chiyao
44.2
10.8
4.6
3.8
2.1
1.5
1.2
0.7
0.7
19

Any Chiyao
Maganga Chiyao
Chiyao Nsanga
Nkhotakota Chiyao
Don’t know
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
22.4
It is clear from Table 3 that the Mangochi Yao (44.2%) is preferred more than other
varieties, this is followed by Machinga Yao (10.8%), Zomba Yao (3.8%) and
Mozambique Yao (1.4%). It should be pointed that Jalasi, Namwera, Katuli and
Makanjira are areas in Mangochi. When all the figures from Mangochi are added up, the
tally is for 51.7%.
This figure is very close to the earlier result that the best Chiyao is spoken in Mangochi
(59.6%)
The respondents were also asked whether they liked to speak Chichewa. An
overwhelming 94.4% indicated that they liked to speak Chichewa and 5.6% said they
didn’t like to speak the language. This compares very well with the 94.7% of
respondents who said they spoke Chichewa although their mother tongue was Chiyao.
This also shows that making Chichewa a national language and the only local languge
taught in schools and broadcasts on the radio, and also the sole vernacular in the print
media has made most Chiyao speakers bilingual.
A related question sought to solicit information on whether respondents spoke Chichewa
frequently. 62.4% of the respondents said they did, 32.1% said they didn’t, 5.5% were
undocumented. This result clearly shows that Chichewa is frequently used in everyday
life although these are typically Chiyao speaking areas.
The respondents were also asked whether it is important that every Malawian should
speak Chichewa. 28.9% of respondents said it was, 21.0% said it wasn’t. 50.1% of the
respondents did not answer the question. The high no­response rate seems to indicate
that most respondents did not actually understand the question and were not quite sure
what the question was about. A corollary question sought to find out why it is imporatnt
for every Malawian to speak Chichewa. The results are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4:
WHY EVERY MALAWIAN SHOULD SPEAK CHICHEWA
20

REASONS GIVEN
Easy communication
Mother tongue
Used by many
Just like it
National language
National unity
Don’t know
Not applicable
Missing
% OF RESPONDENTS
12.5
3.4
2.6
1.5
0.9
0.2
7.8
21.0
50.1
According to Table 4, most people, 12.5% indicated that it was important for every
Malawian to know Chichewa because it facilitated communication. This shows that
Chichewa is recognised as a de facto lingua franca in Malawi. However, the total sum of
those who didn’t know or were undocumented is high, 78.9%. This seems to suggest also
that this question was deemed difficult as well.
Respondents were also requested to indicate the language they would like to be used as
the language of instruction in school. The results are shown in Table 5 below:
TABLE 5: LANGUAGE PREFERRED AS MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION
LANGUAGE
Chichewa
Chiyao
English
Chitumbuka
Chisena
Chinkhonde
Chitonga
% OF RESPONDENTS
49.5
47.3
11.4
2.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
21

From Table 5 it can be seen that respondents preferred Chichewa (49.5%) as the language
of instruction in schools. This was followed by Chiyao (47.3%), English (11.4%) and
Chitumbuka (2.4%). Chisena (0.3%), Chinkhonde (0.2%) and Chitonga (0.2%) were the
least preferred.
Respondents were also requested to indicate the language they would like to be used on
the radio. The results are as in Table 6.
TABLE 6:
LANGUAGE TO BE USED ON RADIO
LANGUAGE
Chiyao
Chichewa
Chitumbuka
Chilomwe
Chisena
Chinkhonde
% OF RESPONDENTS
59.3
41.3
5.8
1.6
0.5
0.5
According to Table 6, 59.3% of the respondents indicated that they preferred Chiyao to
be used on the radio. 41.3% preferred Chichewa, 5.8% preferred Chitumbuka. Chisena
and Chinkhonde were least preferred with 0.5% each.
A related question sought to elicit information on what language respondents wanted to
read in newspapers. The results are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7:
LANGUAGE TO BE USED IN NEWSPAPERS
LANGUAGE
Chiyao
Chichewa
Chitumbuka
% OF RESPONDENTS
54.1
36.7
3.8
22

Chilomwe
Chisena
Chinkhonde
English
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
Table 7 shows that Chiyao (54.1%) was most preferred language for the respondents.
This was followed by Chichewa (36.7%), and Chitumbuka (3.8%), Chisena (0.9%),
Chinkhonde (0.9%) and English (0.8%) were least preferred. It would appear that
English is among the least preferred languages because most of the respondents in the
survey have low primary education.
Respondents were also asked what language should agricultural extension workers use,
the results are shown in Table 8 below:
TABLE 8:
LANGUAGE TO BE USED BY AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
WORKERS
LANGUAGE
% OF RESPONDENTS
Chichewa
Chiyao
English
Chisena
Chitumbuka
Chilomwe
Chinkhonde
Chitonga
Depending on area
50.5
46.2
1.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.1
The results in Table 8 show that Chichewa (50.5%) is the prefered language for extension
workers. This was followed by Chiyao (46.2%). The other languages were least
preferred.
Respondents were further asked a corollary question to indicate the language they would
want health workers to use, and their responses resulted in the following pattern:
23

TABLE 9:
LANGUAGE TO BE USED BY HEALTH WORKERS
LANGUAGE
% OF RSPONDENTS
Chiyao
Chichewa
Chitumbuka
English
Chilomwe
Chisena
Chinkhonde
Chitonga
According to area
51.9
45.1
1.0
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
Again here the dominant languages are Chichewa (45.1%) and Chiyao (51.9%). The rest
of the languages are not preferred. It is clear from the survey results that the most used
languages in the areas under the survey were Chichewa and Chiyao. The other languages
were very little known.
The survey also wanted to test the respondents’ competence in Chiyao. The aim was to
find out whether one was really a Chiyao speaker or just an impositor. This is a
commonly used test in language studies. Respondents listened to a recorded Chiyao
passage. Thereafter, the respondents were requested to briefly explain in Chichewa or
Chiyao what the passage was about. 78.1% understood the passage very well, 5.7%
understood the passage fairly well, and 6.3% did not understand anything. When
competence was correlated with sex, all males (57.7%) understood the passage well, 48%
females understood the passage fairly well and 14.7% of the female respondents did not
understand the passage at all. This can be explained by the fact that female respondents
were rather shy in answering questions and often sought the approval of their spouses. In
addition women were easily disrupted by holdes of children who thought the whole
exercise was a lot of fun.
A related question tested the respondents vocabulary. Respondents were asked to listen
to recorded words and requested to provide its meaning.73.9% of the respondents scored
between 90 – 100, 8.8% scored between 80 – 89, 2.6% scored 50 ­59, 10% scored below
24

50. It has been observed that those who scored below 50 were non­native speakers of
Chiyao.
3.8 SOME GENERAL OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSIONS
Historically education in Malawi was the province of the missionaries.
Its primary objective was to convert the heathens to Christianity. The Yao were
essentially Muslims. Statistics collected in 1928 show that there were 105,000 Muslims
in the country, 95% of whom were Yao. The main centers of concentration then as now
were Zomba, Machinga, Mangochi, Dedza, Dowa and Salima, while most of the non­Yao
Muslims – about 4,000 in number were in Nkhotakota. It is significant to observe in the
current survey that there is a correlation between being Yao and Muslim. The correlation
is shown in Table 10 below.
TABLE 10:
RELIGION VS SPEAKING CHIYAO AS MOTHER TONGUE
DENOMINATION YES NO %
Catholic 55 6.4
CCAP 56 6.5
Seventh Day 27 3.1
Islam 618 71.7
Assemblies of God 9 1.0
Church of Christ 3 3.8
Jehovas Witness 2 0.2
Anglican 5 12 2.0
New Apostolic Church 5 0.6
African 5 0.6
Baptist 2 0.2
Utopia 3 0.3
Church of God 1 0.1
Missing 30 3.5
71.7% of the respondents claimed to be both Yao and Muslim. What is interesting here is
25

that the Yaos being Muslims avoided mission education during the colonial period
because of its emphasis on proselytization. This trend continued well into the
independence period. As a result, the lowest proportions of males attending school were
recorded in parts of Dedza and Salima districts, and in Mangochi and Machinga in the
1996 Population Census. These are the same areas which had large concentrations of
Yaos in 1928. In the current survey 25.9% were uneducated. This upward trend in the
number of educated Yaos can be attributed to the fact mission schools do not insist on
proselytization any more, and additionally, the general availability of primary education.
It is hoped that this upward trend will continue with the free primary education
programme now in place.
The survey has also revealed an important correlation between age and the liking to speak
Chichewa. This correlation is shown in Table 11 below:
TABLE 11:
AGE VS LIKING TO SPEAK CHICHEWA
AGE YES NO %
5­15 119 13.8
16­20 303 35.2
21­35 165 19.1
36­45 82 9.5
46­55 66 7.7
56­65 43 2 5.2
Above 65 36 1 4.3
Missing 45 5.2
Those between the age of 16 – 20 recorded the highest liking to speaking Chichewa
(35.2%), followed by those between 21 – 35 (19.1%) and those between 5 ­15 (13.8%).
The numbers begin to decrease as the age increases. Those respondents between 36 ­45,
9.5% liked to speak Chichewa, 46 ­55, 7.7% liked to speak Chichewa, 56 – 65 liked to
speak Chichewa, only 4.3% of those above 65 liked Chichewa. These facts can be
accounted by the observation that those who are between 16 ­20 are in the upper classes
of primary shool, and those between 21 ­35 are those who are in the job market. In these
domains then the knowledge of Chichewa is very important. Beyond the age of 36
people lead a more settled life where the knowledge of Chichewa is perhaps not
necessary.
An important observation that becomes very clear in the survey is the dominance of
26

Chichewa. This has arisen from the fact that there has been a lot of intermixing between
the Achewas and Yaos. In fact, historically, the Yaos settled in what were previously
Chewa/Nyanja areas. Furthermore, it is attributed to the breakdown of traditional
society, the making of Chichewa the national language and the sole indigenous language
taught at school and the policy of transferring government employees to any district
regardless of their origin or language proficiency. The latter influence has had the effect
of bringing together people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds who need a
common language for easy communication. This dominance of Chichewa in Yao
speaking is going to continue in the foreseeable future.
In conlusion the data analysed in this report have established that the Yao have a very
positive attitude towards their language. It is apparent that the introduction of Chiyao
into the school curriculum and in the print and electronic media is likely to receive
considerable level of acceptability among the Yao. It has also been observed that
Chichewa had made indelible inroads into the Yao communities. As a result bilingualism
in Chiyao and Chichewa appears to be a fact of life for most Yaos.
3.9 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MNINSTRY OF EDUCATION
1) The Ministry of Education should seriously consider introducing Chiyao as the
medium of instruction or school subject since the majority of the respondents
favoured the idea.
2) If Chiyao is to be introduced in the schools then the Mangochi Chiyao should be
adopted since it is felt to be the “purer” form of Chiyao than the others.
3) Efforts should be made to standardize the various Mangochi dialects so as to
produce a standard orthography.
4) Encourage the Malawi Institute of Education to prodece grammars, readers,
teachers’ guides and other teaching/learning materials in Chiyao.
5) The role of Chichewa as a lingua franca should still be recognised and
maintained. It is recommended that Chichewa should continue to be studied as a
subject.
3 CHITUMBUKA SURVEY
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
27

A sociolinguistic survey of Chitumbuka speaking areas of Malawi was conducted by the
Centre for Language Studies from 13 th September to 3 rd October, 1997. The survey
covered the following districts: Mzimba, Nkhata Bay, Rumphi, Karonga and Chitipa. A
pilot phase for the survey was done in Rumphi district from 23 rd August to 29 th August,
1997.
4.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The survey was conducted in order to determine the need, practicality and relevance of
using Chitumbuka as a medium of instruction in primary schools in Chitumbuka speaking
areas.
4.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The following were identified as the survey’s specific objectives:
i. To establish teachers’ competence in using Chitumbuka as a medium of instruction.
ii. To dertermine the availability of teaching/learning materials to support Chitumbuka
as a medium of instruction.
iii. To establish attitudes of Chitumbuka speakers towards Chichewa as a subject and as a
medium of instruction.
iv. To determine zones where the need for use of Chitumbuka in schools is most felt.
v. To establish whether there are other languages that can serve as media of instruction
in schools.
vi. To establish whether or not children acquire proficiency in Chichewa at the end of
their first year in school.
vii. To establish what language teachers use for instruction in the first two years of
pupils’ school life.
viii. To make recommendations to GTZ/MIITEP, the Malawi Institute of Education and
the Ministry of Eductaion onteacher training and learning/teaching materials
reuirements.
4.4 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.4.1 POPULATION
The population for this survey (1732 respondents) comprised: 1105 primary school
pupils, 194 primary school teachers, and 433 parents/guardians. These were identified as
28

the most crucial informants because they are directly involved with whatever language
policy is adopted: teachers (as implementors of government policy), pupils (as victims or
beneficiaries of government policy), and guardians/parents as people who invest in the
future of their children. All the three categories of the population were randomly selected
and then interviewed by the research team.
4.4.2 PROCEDURE
Data for the survey were gathered mainly through interactive interviews with some 1732
randomly selected subjects (i.e. pupils, teachers and parents/guardians) from Mzimba,
Nkhata Bay, Rumphi, Karonga and Chitipa. A questionnaire was admnistered to each
respondent by members of the research team. The questionnaire, which had both openended
and closed items sought to find out the following, among other things:
(i) general information about the resopondents – sex, age, marital status, level of
education, etc.
(ii) proficiency in Chitumbuka and other languages.
(iii) views on the use of Chitumbuka as a medium of instruction in standards 1 – 4.
(iv) teachers’ competence in using Chitumbuka as a medium of
instructiion/subject for study.
(v) availability of learning/teaching materials wrtten in Chitumbuka.
The data collection procedure was as follows: researchers read out questions to which the
subjects responded. The answers were then recorded on the questionnaire by the
researchers. One of the items on the questionnaire was a wordlist in which respondents
were asked to state whether they knew the Chitumbuka words. This was followed by a
narrative which was read out by the researchers. The respondents’ task was to retell the
story in a summarised form. The two tests were aimed at determining the respondents’
level of competence in Chitumbuka.
It has to be mentioned that some data were collected through observation and literature
survey. The researchers were equipped with notepads in which they recorded any
relevant sociolinguistic observation. These observations were made during both working
and off hours.
4.4.3 DATA COLLECTORS
The data collection exercise was done by a team comprising eight principal researchers
29

and eight research assistants. The eight principal researchers were drawn from the
various academic ranks of the Centre for Language Studies and Chancellor College.
Their minimum education qualification was a Bachelor’s degree.
The eight research assistants, whose minimum qualification was a Malawi School
Certificate of Education, were trained in the use of the questionnaire. They were briefed
adequately on the survey’s aims and objectives. Each research assistant was
profesionally supervised by a principal researcher. Some of the research assistants were
native speakers of Chitumbuka.
4.4.4 DATA ANALYSIS
The data were edited, coded and then entered into a computer. The Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for analysing the data. Frequencies, percentages
and cross tabulations were done for the three categories of respondents namely.
4.4.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE SURVEY
It was planned that 2500 subjects would be interviewed. This figure was deemed to be
representative enough because it represented nearly 5% of the population of the Northern
Region. During the survey itself, 1732 subjects were interviewed. The target was missed
because of a number of factors such as bad road conditions which made some areas
inaccessible. Secondly, the fact the Northern Region is sparsely populated made it
difficult for the research team to get hold of a reasonable number of respondents.
Amongst the general problems encountered is that in some cases some subjects would
initially claim that they are monolingual. After a language proficiency test, one would
find that such subjects were in actual fact either bilingual or multilingual. It was also
noted that pupils from the lower classes usually did not provide reasonable and
meaningful answers. The subjects in this category were too young to understand and
appreciate the research questions. So the research team opted for senior pupils.
The research team was sometimes mistaken for agents of the ruling party, the United
Democratic Front (UDF). It must be noted that since the Northern Region is the
stronghold for the Alliance for Democracy (AFORD), the UDF has very little support and
the survey was, therefore, regarded by some people as a politically motivated exercise
whose ultimate goal was to seek political gains for the ruling party.
Other people refused to be interviewed because they claimed that they had more serious
30

and pressing issues to handle e.g. the drought which has badly affected some areas of
Karonga. At Ngerengere in Karonga, some people mistook the researchers for suppliers
of food aid. Upon realising the truth, some of the angry people refused to cooperate with
the research team.
4.4.6 SOME DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
Areas of interest here are sex, age and levels of education. As pointed out earlier on,
1732 subjects were interviewed. Of these 817 (47.2%) were made 891 (51.4%) were
female; 24 (1.4%) were undocumented. The subjects were then grouped into three
categories: teachers, guardians/parents and pupils. The breakdown for these categories
was as follows: 433 (25.0%) parents/guardians; 194 (11.2%) teachers and 1,105 (63.8%)
pupils.
As regards age, the teachers ages ranged from 20 to 59. The highest number of teachers
was concentrated within the 25 – 29 (19.4%) age bracket, followed by 30 – 34 (17.4%),
35 – 39(11.9%) and 20 – 24 (13.9%) bracket. The lowest concentration was within the
55 – 59 (0.5%) age bracket.
The guardians’/parents’ ages ranged from 15 to 70. The highest concentration of
parents’/guardians’ was within the 20 ­24 (20.7%) age bracket, followed by 25 ­29
(16.6%) and 30 ­39 (11.3%) age brackets. The lowest concentration was within the 65 –
69 (2.5%) age bracket.
Among the pupils the ages ranged from 9 to 24. The highest numbers of pupils were
concentrated within the 10 – 14 (55.8%) age bracket, followed by the 15 ­19 (41.0%) age
bracket. The 20 – 24 age range had the lowest number with only 0.6%.
With regard to education, the guardians’ levels of education ranged from no education at
all to tertiary. 3.7% of the guardians had no education; 75% had primary school
education; 12.7% had a Junior Certificate of Education (JCE), 6.9% had a Malawi School
Cerificate of Education (MSCE); and 0.2% had a diploma and 1.4% were undocumented.
Among the teachers, the levels of education ranged from primary to tertiary. 50% had a
J.C.E; 49.0% had an MSCE; 0.5% had a diploma and 0.5% were undocumented.
In order to measure the respondents’ competence in Chitumbuka, all the respondents
were given a comprehension and vocabularly test. In the comprehension test 76.3%
showed very clear understanding, 16.2% showed little understanding; 4.7% did not
31

understand and 2.8% were undocumented. In the vocabularly test 95.5% passed and
4.5% failed. These results show high competence in Chitumbuka among the respondents.
4.5 RESPONSES FROM VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS
4.5.1 TEACHERS’ RESPONSES
In this section the teachers’ responses will be presented. Initially the findings will be
presented according to individual districts of the region. The report then proceeds to
present a summary of the entire region. The breakdown of teachers in the five districts
was as follows: Chitipa 17; Karonga 72; Rumphi 8; Mzimba 72; and Nkhata Bay 25
giving a total of 194
The teachers were first asked to indicate whether or not pupils in standard 1 acquire
proficiency in Chichewa at the end of the first school year. The following results were
obtained:
TABLE 12:
Standard 1 Acquisition Of Proficiency In Chichewa
District
% Respondents
Yes No Don’t know
Chitipa 29.4 70.6 2.8
Karonga 50.0 47.2
Rumphi 25.0 75.0
Mzimba 38.9 59.7
Nkhata Bay 40.0 56.0
Table 12 shows that of the majority of the teachers believe that pupils do not acquire
proficiency in Chichewa after standard 1. There is also, however, a significant number
who believe that they do. It is perhaps expecting too much to expect an infant to acquire
proficiency in a language which he/she encounters only in a classroom in a single school
year.
Two pertinent questions followed the proficiency one. The first was whether or not the
teachers would accept the introduction of Chitumbuka as a subject, and the second one
was whether they would accept Chitumbuka as a medium of instruction. Table 13
summarises the findings:
32

Table 13:
District
Acceptance Of Chitumbuka As A Subject
And As A Medium Of Instruction
% Respondents
Subject Medium of Instruction
Yes No Yes No
Chitipa 58.8 41.2 64.7 35.3
Rumphi 75.0 25.0 75.0 25.0
Karonga 75.0 25.0 75.0 25.0
Mzimba 75.0 25.0 65.3 34.7
Nkhata Bay 72.0 25.0 64.0 36.0
From Table 13 It is clear that most of the teachers in all the five districts would accept
Chitumbuka both as a subject and as a medium of instruction. The rather low percentage
in Chitipa may be due to the fact that the district is not a typically Chitumbuka speaking
one, and that there are several contending languages in the area such as Chilambia,
Chisukwa and Chindali which are also widely spoken.
A follow up question asked the teachers whether or not they are prepared to teach in
Chitumbuka. The results are summarised in the Table 14 below
TABLE 14:
Preparedness To Teach In Chitumbuka
District
Yes
% Respondents
Chitipa 64.7 35.3
Karonga 87.5 12.5
Rumphi 87.5 12.5
Mzimba 76.4 23.6
Nkhata Bay 64.0 36.0
No
According to Table 14, teachers in all the districts of the region are prepared to teach in
Chitumbuka.
A corollary question sought to find out about what language the teachers were trained to
teach in. The results are shown in Table 15
33

Table 15:
Language Trained To Teach In
District
% Respondents
English Chichewa Chitumbuka
Chitipa 70.6 29.4
Rumphi 37.5 62.5
Karonga 44.4 45.8 1.4
Mzimba 59.7 34.7 2.8
Nkhata Bay 56.0 40.0
Table 15 reveals clearly that instruction at the teacher training colleges has been
overwhelmingly in English and, to a lesser extent, in Chichewa. This is not surprising at
all because hitherto only two languages have been sanctioned for use in colleges; English,
the official language and Chichewa, the national language. What perhaps needs
explanation is the 4.2% of teachers who claim to have been trained in Chitumbuka.
From the low figures one possible explanation is that these teachers must have been
trained before 1968, the years Chitumbuka was proscribed as a subject and as a language
of instructiion in eduction institutions.
Teachers were also requested to indicate whether they can teach Chitumbuka as a subject,
on the one hand, and whether they can use it as a medium of instruction, on the other.
The results are shown in Table 16 below:
Table 16:
Competence In Teaching Chitumbuka As A Subject And As A
Medium Of Instruction
% Respondents
District
Subject
Medium of Instruction
Yes No Yes No
Chitipa 58.8 41.2 70.6 29.4
Karonga 80.6 19.4 81.9 81.1
Rumphi 75.0 25.0 87.5 12.5
Mzimba 81.9 18.1 77.8 22.9
Nkhata Bay 76.0 24.0 72.0 28.0
34

The figures above clearly indicate that the teachers believe that they can teach
Chitumbuka both as a subject as well as use it as a language of instruction. The rather
low figure of 58.8% in Chitipa can be explained by the fact observed above that the
district is not a typical Chitumbuka speaking area, and, as pointed out earlier, the
presence of various contending mother tongues makes proficiency in Chitumbuka rather
difficult to achieve.
A further question sought to solicit information on the availabilty of teaching materials in
Chitumbuka. All the teachers in Chitipa indicated that they had none. In Karonga 91.7%
of teachers indicated that they had none, 5.6% indicated that they did not have any
teaching and learning materials. In Mzimba 86.1% of teachers indicated that they had
neither learning nor teaching materials, while 6.9% said they had texbooks. In Nkhata
Bay 84% of the teachers said they had neither learning nor teaching materials, while 16%
said they had textbooks.
The data indicates very clearly that there are no teaching or learning materials in
Chitumbuka in the majority of the schools. How then is the availability of the said
materials in Nkhata Bay, Mzimba and Karonga explained? Sinc Chitumbuka was
proscribed as a language in 1968, these materials must have come from the preproscription
period. In addition, they may be personal property of the teachers concerned
since the Ministry of Education had not officially sanctioned Chitumbuka teaching and
learning materials after proscription.
The respondents were also asked whether they had any problems with the Chitumbuka
orthography. In Chitipa 35% of teachers said they had problems; 29.4% did not know;
35.3% said there were no problems.
In Karonga, 50% of the teachers had problems with Chitumbuka orthography, while
47.25% had no problems. In Rumphi 75.5% o the teachers had problems with the
orthgraphy while 25% did not have any problems. In Mzimba 66.7% of the teachers
indicated that they found problems with the orthography, while 30.0% found none; and
2.8% didn’t know. In Nkhta Bay 64% of thee teachers had problems with the
orthography, while 36% did not have any. These responses indicate that there are some
significant orthography probems ealting to Chitumbuka which need to be addressed.
Teachers were requested to indicate whether the introduction of Chitumbuka in schools
would adversely affect the teaching of English, and whether learning would be easier if
everything was taught in Chitumbuka. The responses to these questions are presented in
Table 17.
35

Table 17:
Adverse Effects of Chitumbuka on English and Learning Made Easier
in Chitumbuka
District
Adverse Effects on
English
% of Respondents
Learning Made Easier in Chitumbuka
Yes No Yes No Don’t know
Chitipa 58.8 41.2 47.1 47.1 5.9
Karonga 47.2 52.8 68.1 31.9
Rumphi 50.0 50.0 75.0 25.0
Mzimba 54.2 45.8 67.7 33.3
Nkhata Bay 40.0 60.0 56.0 44.0
Table 17 indicates that while the teachers are certain about the fact that learning would be
made easier if everything was taught in Chitumbuka; they are not quite sure about its
adverse effects on the learning of English. This is why the results are evenly distributed.
Teachers were requested to indicate whether or not they were of the opinion that science
could be taught in Chitumbuka. The results are presented in Table 18.
Table 18:
Possibility Of Teaching Science In Chitumbuka
District
% Respondents
Yes No Don’t Know
Chitipa 17.6 76.5 5.9
Karonga 62.5 37.5
Rumphi 62.5 37.5
Mzimba 40.3 59.7
Nkhata Bay 76.0 24.0
Table 18 shows that teachers in 2 of the 5 districts surveyed (i.e. Chitipa and Mzimba) do
not consider it possible to teach science in Chitumbuka. This lack of consesus on the
possibility of teaching science in the vernacular shows that the teachers are uncertain on
this issue. One of the main problems the teachers mentioned was the use of scientific
terminology in the vernacular which they said would be difficult.
36

Teachers were also requested to indicate when thhey use Chitumbuka in the classroom.
In Chitipa 47% of teachers indicated that they do not use Chitumbuka at all in the
classroom; 11.8% said they used it when teaching social and religious studies; another
11.8% indicated that they used it whenever they felt that the pupils understood it, and
29.4% said they used it whenever they felt there was need to clarify a point.
In Karonga 48.6% of teachers indicated that they used Chitumbuka to clarify issues,
16.7% indicated that they used it to teach social and religious studies; 5.6% claimed they
used it for introducing new pupils; and 25% indicated that they do not use it at all.
In Rumphi 75% of the teachers said that they use Chitumbuka for clarification; 12.5%
idicated that they use it when introducing new pupils’ and 12.5% said they do not use it at
all.
In Mzimba 76.4% of the teachers reported that they use Chitumbuka for clarification;
11.1% indicated that they use it to teach social and religious studies; 2.8% use it
whenever it is understood; 1.4% indicated that they use it to discipline the pupils; 1.4%
used it for introducing new pupils and yet another 1.4% did not respond; and 5.6%
indicated that they do not use it at all.
The same question was repeated in Nkhata Bay where 64% of the teachers said that they
used Chitumbuka to facilitate learning; 8% said they used it to introduce new pupils; 28%
indicated that they do not use it at all.
A follow­up question requested the teachers to indicate the language most used at their
school by their pupils. The results are shown in Table 19.
Table 19:
Language Most Spoken By Pupils At School
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Sukwa Ndali Bandia
Chitipa 41.2 29.4 5.9 29.4
Karonga 1.4 2.8 51.4 44.4
Rumphi 100
Mzimba 5.6 94.4
Nkhata
Bay 4.0 4.0 92.0
From Table 19, Chitumbuka is predominant among pupils only in two districts, namely
37

Rumphi (100%) and Mzimba (94.4%). In Karonga Chitumbuka faces stiff competetion
from Chinkhonde. In Chitipa, Chitumbuka is not even used.
In Nkhata Bay the preferred language is Chitonga (92.0%). This may have implications
for the use of Chitumbuka as a medium of instruction in these two districts in terms of
acceptance by those who are supposed to directly benefit, namely, the pupils themselves.
Teachers were also requested to indicate whether or not they supported the idea of
teaching in the mother tongue. The folowing are the results:
Table 20:
Support For The Idea Of Teaching In Mother Tongue
District
Yes
Chitipa 58.8 41.2
Karomga 69.4 30.6
Rumphi 62.5 37.5
Mzimba 61.1 36.1
Nkhata Bay 76.0 24.0
% Respondents
No
From Table 20 above, it is clear that the majority of the teachers support the idea of
teaching in the mother tongue. However, the high percentage of those who did not
support the idea should also be noted.
The last question on the teachers section requested the teachers to indicate whether
language is a contributing factor to pupils’ failure in infant classes. The results are
tabulated below:
Table 21:
Language Contributing Factor to Pupils Failure
District
Yes
% Respondents
Chitipa 88.2 11.8
Karonga 77.8 22.2
No
38

Rumphi 75.0 25.0
Mzimba 84.7 11.1
Nkhata Bay 76.0 24.0
From Table 21 It is very clear that overwhelming majority of teachers recognise language
as a contributing factor to pupils failure in infant classes. This may explain why they
support teaching in the mother tongue.
4.5.1.1 OTHER DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE
Apart from answering questions on education, teachers were also asked supplementary
questions on language(s) to be used in other public domains besides education. In this
section, the findings in these domains will be presented
First, the teachers were requested to indicate the language they would prefer to be used
on the radio. The folowing results were obtained:
Table 22:
Language To Be Used On The Radio
Dist
rict
Eng
lish
Che
wa
Tumbu
ka
% Respondents
To
nga
Nkho
nde
Su
kwa
Nd
ali
Lam
bia
Chitipa 17.6 29.4 23.5 5.9 11.8 5.9 5.9
Karonga 15.3 45.8 27.8 4.2 1.4 1.4 1.4
Rumphi 50.0 50.0
Mzimba 25.0 27.8 43.1
Nkhata Bay 12.0 60.0 20.0
Ny
ika
Bandia
According to Table 22, Chichewa is the most favoured language to be used on the radio
in four districts: Karonga, Chitipa, Rumphi and Nkhata Bay. In Rumphi, however, this
position is shared with Chitumbuka. The second most favoured language is Chitumbuka
followed by English. Attention, however, should also be drawn to the very strong
showing of Chichewa in Nkhata Bay, and also rather significant showing of Chisukwa in
Chitipa.
39

Teachers were also asked to indicate what language they would prefer to be used in the
newspapers. The following results were obtained:
Table 23:
Language To Be Used In Newspapers
Dist
rict
Eng
lish
Chewa
Tum
buka
% Respondents
Tonga Nkh Sukwa Ndali Lambi
onde
a
Chitipa 23.5 35.3 23.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Karonga 27.8.0 40.3 25.0 2.8 1.4 1.4
Rumphi 37.5 25.0 37.5
Mzimba 45.8 18.1 34.7
Nkhata Bay 32.0 40.0 20.0 8.0
Nyika
Band
ia
According to Table 23, Chichewa is the most favoured language in three districts:
Chitipa, Karonga and Nkhata Bay followed by English and Chitumbuka respectively. In
Rumphi the most favoured languages are English and Chitumbuka each with 37.55%
follwed by Chichewa. In Mzimba the most favoured language is English follwed by
Chitumbuka and Chichewa respectively. The strong showing of Engilsh and Chichewa
reflects the fact that these two languages have dominated newspaper publishing in the
country, as well as the teachers’ levels of education and sophistication.
Table 24:
Language To Be Used In Parliament
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Tonga Nkhonde Sukwa Ndali Lambia Nyika Bandia
Chitipa 47.1 23.5 5.9 5.9 11.8 5.9
Karonga 50.0 29.2 15.3 1.4 1.4 1.4
Rumphi 50.0 12.5 37.50
Mzimba 63.9 19.4 15.3
Nkhata 40.0 44.0 12.0 4.0
40

Bay
Table 24 shows that English is the most preferred language for use in parliament in four
districts: Chitipa. Karonga and Mzimba followed by Chitumbuka except in Chitipa where
this status is enjoyed by Chichewa. Nkhata Bay, however, stands out in choosing
Chichewa as the most favoured language followed by English and Chitumbuka
respectively. The very strong showing of English, the official language, and Chichewa,
the national language, illustrate the perceived “official” nature of the domain.
Table 25:
Language To Be Used In The Constitution
Dis
trict
Eng
lish
Chewa
Tum
buka
% Respondents
Tonga Nkh
onde
Sukwa Ndali Lam
bia
Chitipa 41.2 23.5 11.8 5.9 11.8 5.9
Karonga 38.9 27.5 23.6 1.4 4.2 1.2
Rumphi 37.5 12.5 50.0
Mzimba 48.6 18.1 30.6
Nkhata
Bay
40.0 12.0 12.0
Nyika
Bandia
According to Table 25, English is the most favoured language for use in the constitution
in four districts, namely Chitipa, Karonga, Mzimba and Nkhata Bay. English is followed
by Chichewa except in Mzimba where it is folowed by Chitumbuka. In Rumphi,
however, the most preferred language is Chitumbuka followed by English and Chichewa
respectively. The strong showing of English and Chichewa again reflect the official
nature of the domain.
Table 26:
Language To Be Used In Government Notices
41

% Respondents
District Eng
lish
Chewa Tumbuka Tonga Nkhonde Sukwa Ndali Lambia Nyik
a
Chitipa 47.1 29.4 11.8 5.9 5.9
Karong 31.9 25.0 30.6 1.4 5.6 1.4 1.4 1.4
a
Rumph 37.5 25.0 37.5
i
Mzimb 54.2 15.3 29.2 1.4
a
Nkhata 32.0 44.0 16.0 8.0
Bay
Bandia
According to Table 26, English is the most favoured language in four districts namely
Chitipa, Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba followed by Chitumbuka except in Chitipa where
it is followed by Chichewa. Here again Nkhata Bay stands out in preferring Chichewa
followed by English and Chitumbuka respectively. English and Chichewa are again
preferred here because of the perceived official nature of the domain.
Table 27:
Language To Be Used In Church
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tum
buka
Tonga Nkhonde Sukwa Ndali Lambia Nyika Ban
dia
Chitipa 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 5.9 11.8 17.6 5.9 11.8
Karong 1.4 16.8 56.9 1.4 16.7 1.4 1.4 1.4
a
Rumphi 12.5 87.5
Mzimb 9.7 8.3 76.4
a
Nkhata
Bay
8.0 20.0 56.0
Table 27 reveals that Chitumbuka is the most preferred language for use in chuech in
three districts, namely, Karonga, Rumphi, Mzimba and Nkhata Bay. In Chitipa, the most
42

preferred language is Chilambia (17.6%); followed by English, Chichewa, Chitumbuka,
Chinkhonde and Chibandia each with 11.8%. What is of interest here is the wide spread
of local languages already mentioned. This may reflect the unofficial nature of the
domain, and the intimate nature of what is involved.
Table 28:
Language To Be Used In Hospitals
District
English Chewa Tum
buka
% Respondents
Tonga Nkhonde Sukwa Ndali Lambia Nyika Bandi
a
Chitipa 5.9 23.5 29.4 11.8 11.8 11.8 5.9
Karonga 1.4 26.4 48.6 1.4 13.9 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.4
Rumphi 37.5 62.5
Mzimba 19.4 15.3 61.1 1.4 1.4
Nkhata
Bay
44.0 28.0 28.0
Table 28 shows that Chitumbuka is the most preferred language in four districts namely
Karonga, Chitipa, Rumphi and Mzimba. In these districts the second preferred language
is Chichewa except in Mzimba where English occupies this position. However, note that
in this domain the most preferred language in Nkhata Bay is Chichewa followed by
Chitumbuka and Chitonga each with 28.0%. Of interest here again is the wide spread of
local languages. Again this reflects the intimate/local nature of the domain.
Finally, the teachers were asked to indicate what language they would prefer to be used
by social workers. The results obtained were as follows:
Table 29:
Language To Be Used By Social Workers
District
Eng
lish
Chewa
Tum
buka
% Respondents
Tonga Nkhonde Sukwa Ndali Lambia Nyika Band
ia
Chitipa 17.6 11.8 17.6 11.8 17.6 11.8 5.9 5.9
Karonga 13.9 20.8 44.4 12.5 1.4 1.4 2.8
Rumphi 25.0 25.0 50.0
Mzimba 22.2 18.1 56.9 1.4 1.4
43

Nkhata
Bay
8.0 44.0 20.0 24.0
From Table 29, Chitumbuka is the most preferred language to be used by social workers
in three districts, namely, Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba. In Rumphi it is followed by
both English and Chichewa each with 25.0%. In Karonga, Chitumbuka is followed by
Chichewa and English respectively. In Mzimba it is followed by English and Chichewa
respectively. In Chitipa the picture is more complex in the sense that three languages
namely English, Chitumbuka and Chindali share the most preferred language position
each with 17.6% followed by Chichewa, Chisukwa and Chilambia each with 11.8%.
Chisukwa and Chilambia each with 11.8%. The lack of any discernible pattern reflects
the complex nature of the job of the social worker.
It should be noted here that a melange of languages are also mentioned perhaps reflecting
the expectations people place on the social worker.
Mzimba 7.1
Nkhamanga 4.1
Chilumba 3.1
Nyika 2.0
Kapolo 2.0
Other Less than 1
Table 30 shows Henga is considered the most appropriate variety for teaching followed
by Rumphi, Karonga and Mzimba varieties respectively.
The same parents/guardians were also asked to indicate where the best Chitumbuka is
spoken, 41.8% indicated Rumphi; 34.7% mentioned Karonga, 16.3% said Mzimba; 2.0%
said Nkhata Bay and 1% indicated Chitipa.
In Rumphi 75 parents/guardians were interviewd, and were also requesteed to indicate
what they considered to be the most appropppriate variety of Chitumbuka for teaching in
schools, as was the case with the Karonga parents/guarduians. The following responses
were obtained:
Table 31:
Rumphi
Variety of Chitumbuka
% Respondents
Nkhamanga 24.0
44

Rumphi 17.3
Pure Tumbuka 6.7
Henga 5.3
Mzimba 5.3
Phoka 2.7
Ngoni 2.7
Nyika 1.3
Misuku 1.3
Nkhata Bay 1.3
Don’t know 16.0
N/A 14.7
Table 31 shows that in Rumphi, Nkhamanga is considered to be the most approppriate
variety for teaching followed by the Rumphi variety and what is called “pure”
Chitumbuka respectively.
As a corollary question the parents/guardians were alo asked where the best Chitumbuka
is spoken. 41.8% indicated Rumphi; 34.7% said Karonga; 16.3% indicated Mzimba;
2.0% indicated Nkhata Bay; 1.0% said Chitipa, and 4.1% did not know.
It is intersing to note that the three varieties of Chitumbuka which are considered to be
most appropriate for schools namely, Nkhamanga, Rumphi variety and Henga are, in fact
all spoken in, Rumphi district. This raises the issue of what is understood by the term
“Rumphi variety”. Again the data also shows that there was a significant 30% of the
parents/gaurdians who did know anything about varieties of Chitumbuka.
In Nkhata Bay 126 parents/guardians were interviewed and the following results for the
most appropriate variety of Chitumbuka for schools were obtained:
Table 32:
Nkhata Bay
Variety of Chitumbuka
% Respondents
Rumphi variety 19.0
Mzimba variety 16.7
Ngoni 10.3
Phoka 5.6
Henga 5.6
45

Nkhamanga 2.4
Pure Tumbuka 1.6
Other less than 1
Don’t know 23.0
N/A 11.0
It is also interesting to note here that Mzimba variety had 16.7% and Chingoni had
10.3%. Originally Chingoni was spoken in Mzimba, this therefore raises the question of
whether this is one variety or indeed two different varieties. In addition it is also worth
noting that a significant 23.0% of the parents/guardians did not know anything about
varieties of Chitumbuka. Perhaps this is not surprising considering that Nkhata Bay is a
non­Chitumbuka speaking district.
As regards where the best Chitumbuyjka is spoken, 42% of the respondents indicated
Rumphi; 42.1% said Mzimba; 0.8% mentioned Karonmga and did not know.
In Mzimba 130 guardians were asked the same questions. The folowing responses were
obtained:
Table 33:
Mzimba
Variety of Chitumbuka
% Respondents
Mzimba 21.6
Ngoni 6.7
Henga 6.0
Rumphi 1.5
46

Pure 1.5
Mmbelwa 1.5
Euthini 1.5
Kafukule 1.5
Other less than 1
Dont know 32.8
N/A 1.0
Again here Table 33 shows that as was the case in Nkhata Bay, a distinction is made
between what is termed “Mzimba variety” and Ngoni. The exact characteristics of these
two varieties have yet to be determined. It should be noted nevertheless, that a
significant 32.8% of respondents did not know.
As regards where the best Chitumbuka is spoken 67.2% respondents said Mzimba, 22.4%
said Rumphi and the rest of the districts had less than 1.0%.
The parents/guardians were also requested to indicate whether or not they could read and
write Chitumbuka competently, on the hand and whether they could do the same in
Chichewa, on the other. The findings are presented below:
Table 34:
Competence in Reading and Writing Chitumbuka and Chichewa
% Respondents
District Chitumbuka
Chichewa
Read Write Read Write
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Karonga 72.4 27.6 67.3 32.7 62.0 37.8 55.1 44.4
Rumphi 74.7 25.3 72.0 28.0 65.3 34.7 57.3 42.7
Mzimba 82.1 17.9 76.9 23.1 59.0 39.6 54.5 44.0
Nkhata
Bay
96.8 28.6 62.7 35.7 77.0 24.6 73.8 24.6
When statistics are compared, one observes that the numbers of those who can read are
higher than those who can write. This may suggest that writing is a much more difficult
skill than reading. It may also suggest that the adult literacy campaigns emphasise
reading more than writing
47

4.5.2.1 OTHER DOMAINS OF LANGUAGES USE
Supplemantary questions were presented to the parents/guardians in the various districts
to indicte the language they would like to use in various domains were the radio,
newspapers, parliament, constitution, church, hospitals, government notices, and social
work respectively. The results for these domains are tabulated below:
Table 35:
Language To Be Used On Radio
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Yao Ngon
i
Karonga 18.4 31.6 31.6 17.3
Rumphi 6.7 18.7 70.7
Mzimba 17.9 17.9 59.7
Nkhata 14.3 43.7 17.5 19.0
Bay
Swahili
According to Table 35, respondents preferred Chitumbuka to be used on the radio in
three districts namely Karonga, Mzimba and Rumphi. In Karonga, however, Chitumbuka
and Chichewa shared the most favoured languages status each with 31.6% followed by
English and Chinkhonde respectively.
Table 36:
Language to be Used In Newspapers
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Yao Ngon
i
Karonga 12.2 22.4 41.8 21.4
Rumphi 4.0 24.0 70.1
Mzimba 13.4 20.9 61.9
Nkhata 15.9 38.9 19.8 22.2 0.8
Bay
Swahili
From the Table 36, Chitumbuka is the most favoured language for newspapers in
Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba followed by Chichewa ion Nkhata Bay, however,
48

Chichewa is the most favoured langusaage , followed by Chitonga, Chitumbuka and
Engkish in that order.
Table 37:
Language To B e Used In Parliament
District
Englis
h
Chew
a
Tumbuk
a
% Respondents
Nkhond
e
Tong
a
Lambi
a
Ya
o
Ngon
i
Karong 26.5 30.6 25.5 16.3
a
Rumphi 12.0 21.3 62.7 1.3
Mzimb 26.9 18.7 50.0
a
Nkhata
Bay
22.2 41.3 19.0 15.1
Swahil
i
According to Table 37, Chitumbuka is the most preferred language for use in Parliament
in Rumphi and Mzimba, followed by Chichewa. In Nkhata Bay and Karonga Chichewa
is the most favoured followed by English. The stong showing of English and Chichewa
may reflect the extent of the official nature of this domain. This explains why the
national and official languages are preferred.
Table 38:
Language to be Used in Constitution
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Yao Ngon
i
Karonga 18.4 31.6 31.6 17.3
Rumphi 6.7 18.7 70.7
Mzimba 17.9 17.9 59.7
Nkhata 14.3 43.7 17.5 19.0
Swahili
49

Bay
Table 38 shows that Chichewa is the most preferred language for the constitution in
Karonga and Nkhata Bay. In Karonga, however, the position of Chichewa is shared with
Chitumbuka. In Rumphi and Mzimba, Chitumbuka is preferred followed by Chichewa
and English respectively. The strong showing of English and Chichewa reflects, just like
parliament, the official nature of this domain.
Guardians were also requested to indicate the language they would like to use in church.
The results are as in Table 39.
Table 39:
Language To Be Used In Church
% Respondents
Districts
English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Yao Ngon Swahili
i
Karonga 9.2 53.1 34.7
Rumphi 14.7 82.7 1.3
Mzimba 3.0 7.5 85.8 0.7
Nkhata
Bay
3.2 36.5 27.8 31.0 0.8
According to Table 39, Chitumbuka is the most preferred language to be used in Church
in three districts namekly, Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba followed by Chichewa.
However, in Nkhata Bay the preferred language is Chichewa; followed by Chitonga and
Chitumbuka resopectively. This perhaps reflects the fact that Nkhata Bay is not a
Chitumbuka speaking district. However, it should be noted that there is generally a wider
preference of the use of indigenous languages in domain.
50

Respondents were also requested to indicate the language they would prefer to be used in
hospitals. The results are as in Table 40 below:
Table 40:
Language To Be Used In Hospitals
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Yao Ngon Swahili
i
Karonga 1.0 18.4 54.1 24.5
Rumphi 14.7 82.7 1.3
Mzimba 4.5 15.7 76.9
Nkhata
Bay
2.4 43.7 26.2 26.2
The results here indicate that Chitumbuka is the language preferred to be used in
hospitals in three districts, namely, Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba. However, in Nkhata
Bay it is noted, once again, that the preferred language is Chichewa followed by
Chitumbuka and Chitonga both with 26.2%. Again here Nkhata Bay stands out in
preferring Chichewa followed by Chitonga and Chitumbuka. What is interesting in this
domain, as was the case with the Church, is that there is a fair spread of local languages
reflecting perhaps the intimate nature of what is involved.
Respondents were also requested to indicate the language they would prefer to be used in
government notices: The results were as follows:
Table 41: Government Notices
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Yao Ngon
i
Karonga 10.2 24.5 46.9 16.3
Rumphi 1.3 22.7 72.0
Mzimba 8.2 14.9 73.9
Nkhata 6.3 47.6 21.4 21.4 0.8
Swahili
51

Bay
The results show that Chitumbuka is the most preferred language for use in government
notices in three districts, namely, Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba. This is followed by
Chichewa. In Nkhata Bay, the same pattern observed above appears where Chichewa is
the most preferred language followed by Chitonga and Chitumbuka each with 21.4%.
Finally, guardians were requested to indicate what language(s) they would want social
workers to use. Table 42 shows the results:
Table 42:
Language To Be Used By Social Workers
% Respondents
District Eglish Chichewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Swahili Lambia Yao Bandia
Karonga 5.1 15.3 51.1 26.5 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Chitipa ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Rumphi ­ 21.3 73.3 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Mzimba 8.2 14.9 73.9 ­ ­ ­ ­­ ­ ­
Nkhata
Bay
­ 46.0 24.6 ­ 26.2 ­ 0.8 0.8 ­
The picture that emerges here shows that the preferred language for use by the social
workers in Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba is Chitumbuka. However, in Nkhata Bay the
most favoured language is Chichewa followed by Chitonga and Chitumbuka respectively.
A summary of the results given in the tables above show that in the Chitumbuka speaking
areas of Rumphi and Mzimba, the language most preferred is Chitumbuka, followed by
Chichewa and then English. In Karonga where only a part of the district speaks
Chitumbuka, the preference for this language is not as overwhelming as in Rumphi and
Mzimba. In Nkhata Bay, Chitumbuka is clearly not favoured. As stated above, this
probably reflects the fact that this district does not linguistically accept domination in
Chitumbuka.
Parents/gaurdians were alos asked whether or not they would like their children to be
taught in Chichewa, on the one hand, and Chitumbuka, on the othe hand. The results are
tabulated below:
52

Table 43:
Whether To Be Taught In Chichewa and Chitumbuka
% Respondents
District Chichewa
Chitumbuka
Yes No Yes No
Karonga 70.4 29.6 70.4 29.6
Rumphi 72.0 24.0 92.0 6.7
Mzimba 61.9 34.3 81.3 17.2
Nkhata Bay 77.0 23.0 61.9 37.3
From Table 43 it is clear that guardians prefer the use of Chichewa as a medium of
instruction, as well as the teaching of Chitumbuka.
Parents/gaurdians were further requested to indicate whether they want pupils to be
taught in Chitumbuka. The results were as below:
Table 44:
Want To Be Taught In Chitumbuka
% Respondents
District
Yes
No
Karonga 75.5 22.4
Rumphi 61.3 32.0
Mzimba 72.4 27.6
Nkhata Bay 67.5 31.0
From Table 44 it is apparent that the majority of the parents/guardians want pupils to be
taught in Chitumbuka.
Parents/gaurdians were also requested to indicate whether or not language was a
contributing to pupils’ failure in infant classes. The results are as tabuklated below:
Table 45:
Language As A Factor In Pupils Failure
% Respondents
District
Yes
No
Karonga 75.0 22.4
Rumphi 61.3 32.0
53

Mzimba 72.4 27.6
Nkhata Bay 67.5 31.0
According to Table 45, the majority of the gaurdians believe that language contributes to
pupils’ failure in the infant classes.
4.5.2.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION
When a global view of the Northern Region is taken, the following salient facts present
themselves:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
that Rumphi Chitumbuka is considered to be the most appropriate variety for
use insxchols
that the best Chityumbuka is spoken in Rumphi which goes to confirm what is
claimed in the literature
that the majority of the parents/gaurdians recognise the importance of mother
tongue in education and that they would support the use of their Chichewa or
Chitubmka as medium of instruction.
That the majority of the parents/guardians, on the one hand, consider
Chitumbuka tobe the most appropriate language for use in other domains such
as the radio, the newspapers, government notices, etc, while in Nkhata Bay,
on the other hand, the majority prefer Chichewa in the said domains.
4.5.3 PUPILS’ RESPONSES
In all, the survey interviewed 1,105 pupils in the northern region. In this section, the
responses to various salient questions will be presented. Finally, a summary of the
findings will be presented.
The following is the breakdown of the number of pupils interviewed in the region.
Chitipa 132, Rumphi 87, Karonga 248, Mzimba 418, Nkhata Bay 220. The pupils were
first requested to indicate whether or not they could read and write in Chichewa and
Chitumbuka respectively. The following results were obtained;
Table 46:
Ability To Read And Write In Chitumbuka And In Chichewa
54

% Resdpondentys
District Chichewa
Chitumbuka
Read Write Read Write
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Chitipa 89.4 10.6 88.6 11.4 74.2 25.8 65.2 34.8
Karonga 97.6 2.4 96.0 4.0 85.5 14.5 79.0 21.0
Rumphi 97.7 2.3 98.9 1.1 96.6 3.4 94.3 5.7
Nkhta 94.1 5.9 92.7 7.3 62.7 28.2 57.7 38.6
Bay
Mzimba 90.7 9.3 89.2 10.8 90.4 9.3 87.3 12.7
From Table 46 above, the pupils show high levels of literacy in both Chichewa and
Chitumbuka. The results should not be entirely surprising because the languages are
closely related in both structure and vocabulary. The languages, of course, belong to the
same famliy of Bantu languages.
The pupils were also asked to mindictae what they consider the most appropriate variety
of Chitumbuka. The following results were obtained;
Table 47:
Chitipa
Variety of Chitumbuka
% Respondents
Rumphi 15.2
Mzimba 11.4
Ngoni 4.5
Henga 4.5
Phoka 3.8
Nthalire 3.0
Nkhamanga 2.3
Karonga 2.3
Other
less than
No response 4.5
Don’t know 11.4
55

N/A 33.3
A follow up question requested the pupils to indicate where the best Chitumbuka is
spoken. The following results were obtained: 35.6% of the pupils indicated both Rumphi
and Mzimba; 9.1% said Chitipa; 4.5% indicated Karonga; 3.8% said Nkhata Bay; 1.5%
said Kasungu; and 8.35 did not know.
Table 48 Karonga
Variety of Chitumbuka
% Respondents
Rumphi 14.5
Mzimba 10.1
Henga 8.5
Ngoni 6.0
Phoka 4.0
Karonga 4.0
Nkhamanga 2.4
Cilumba 2.0
Other
Less than
No response 1.6
Dont know 17.3
N/A 26.6
On the supplementary quetion of where the best Chitumbuka is spoken, 45.6% indicated
Rumphi, 28.6%said Mzimba; 17.3% mentioned Karonga, Chitipa, Nkhata Bay, and
Kasungu each had 0.8%, 4.8% indicated that they did not know.
Table 49:
Rumphi
Variety of Chitumbuka
%Respondents
Nkhamanga 35.6
Rumphi 20.7
Mzimba 2.3
Henga 1.1
Phoka 1.1
Bolero 1.1
No response 2.3
Don’t know 11.5
56

N/A 19.5
On the corollary question of where the best Chitumbuka is spoken 97.7% said Rumphi,
1.1% said Mzimba and 1.1% did not know.
Table 50:
Mzimba
Variety of Chitumbuka
%Respondents
Mzimba 21.1
Ngoni 13.4
Rumphi 5.0
Ekwendeni 2.9
Phoka 1.4
Other
Less than
No response 2.9
Don’t know 19.1
N/A 25.6
On the supplementary question of where the best Chitumbuka is spoken 63.9% of the
pupils said Mzimba;23.2% indicated Rumphi; 1.4% Chitipa; Karonga and Nkhata Bay
had less than 1.0%; and 9.8% did not know.
Table 51:
Nkhata Bay
Variety of Chitumbuka
%Respondents
Mzimba 14.1
Rumphi 10.0
Ngoni 5.0
Henga 2.3
Usisya 2.3
Phoka 1.4
Nkhamanga 1.4
Other Less than 1
Dont know 22.7
N/A 36.8
57

The supplementary question on where the best Chitumbuka is spoken yielded the
following results; 38.6% said Mzimba; 31.8% indicated Rumphi; said Karonga 2.7%;
indicated Nkhata Bay 2.3%; and Chitipa 0.5%; 8.6% did not know, 1.8% did not respond
and 4.5 were not applicable.
The pupils were also requested to indicate whether they would like to be taught
Chitumbuka. The following results were obtained.
Table 52:
Like To Be Taught In Chitumbuka
% Respondents
District
Yes
No
Chitipa 54.5 45.5
Karonga 27.0 73.0
Rumphi 32.2 67.0
Mbimba 52.2 47.4
Nkhata Bay 28.6 68.6
The picture that emerges from Table 52 is that mosst of the pupils would not like to be
taught in Chitumbuka. This has been a general trend in other surveys too. The
explanation is that pupils believe that indigenous languages are inferior. In their opinion,
these languages do not open vistas for employment or social mobility; and, therefore, can
only impede their progress.
A follow up question requested those pupils who wanted Chitumbuka to indicate in
which classes would like to be taught the language. The results were as follows:
Table 53
Classes In which Chitumbuka Should Be taught
% Respondents
District
Classes
1 ­8 1 ­4 5 ­8 N/A
Chitipa 28.8 19.7 5.3 4.6
Karonga 14.1 12.1 0.4 73.0
Rumphi 13.8 17.2 69.0
Mzimba 25.1 27.0 1.0 46.4
Nkhata Bay 14.5 10.9 2.7 68.2
58

Table 53 shows that most pupils prefer Chitumbuka to be taught in standard 1 ­8 (96.3%)
followed by standards 1 ­4 (86.9%). However, when it comes to senior classes i.e. 5 ­8
the pupils are less enthusiastic, only 9.4% favoured the idea. It should also be noted that
there was a very high percentage of not applicable responses which perhaps suggests that
most pupils did not think it was a matter of concern.
A corollary question requested those pupils who indicated who indicated that they do not
want to be taught in Chitumbuka to provide an alternative language they would like to be
taught. The following are the results:
Table 54: Alternative To Chitumbuka
% Respondents
District English Chewa Nkhonde Sukwa Tonga Lambia Ndali N/A
Chitipa 31.1 18.9 0.8 3.8 2.3 0.8 41.7
Karonga 52.4 21.4 0.4 25.0
Rumphi 63.2 4.6 31.0
Mzimba 33.3 11.5 53.3
Nkhata
Bay
40.9 20.5 5.5 30.2
Table 54 above indicates that the most prefered alternative to Chitumbuka is English
followed byChichewa. It is obvious that pupils recognise the importance of English as an
international language, a key to employment and general social mobility. The pupils also
recognise the value of Chichewa as a national language as well as the de facto lingua
franca in the country.
A supplementary question requested the pupils to indicate whether or not they have
problems in studying English and Chichewa. The following are the results
Table 55:
Problems In Studying English And Chichewa
District
% Respondents
English
Chichewa
Yes No Yes No
59

Chitipa 77.3 22.7 25.0 75.0
Karonga 64.5 35.5 21.8 78.2
Rumphi 69.0 31.0 18.4 81.6
Mzimba 68.4 31.1 23.2 76.6
Nkhata Bay 78.6 20.9 16.8 82.7
Table 55 above shows that the majority of pupils do find problems studying English on
the one hand while, on the other hand, an overwhelming majority do not find problems
studying in Chichewa.
This scenario can easily be explained by the fact that English is an alien language which
is structurally different from the mother tongues of the pupils while Chichewa is very
close to the mother tongues of the pupils both in structure and vocabulary.
As a supplementary question the pupils were requested to indicate the nature of their
problems. The following results were obtained for English and Chichewa:
Table 56:
Nature Of Problems In Studying English
District DW GR SPG RDG SPKG COMP IB COMPR WTG TR
A
Chitipa 25.
8
Karonga 15.
7
Rumphi 13.
0
Mzimba 12.
4
Nkhata
Bay
16.
4
3.0 7.6 5.3 3.8 1.
5
3.6 5.6 2.4 3.2 2.0 0.
4
PRO NMT FU OTHE
R
4.5 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.5 18.
2
2.8 1.2 0.8 1.2 24.
6
8.0 4.6 2.3 3.4 6.9 4.6 2.3 2.3 20.
7
3.8 2.2 4.3 2.9 1.9 0.
2
1.7 2.4 0.7 1.2 31.
1
4.6 7.3 4.1 1.8 0.9 4.5 1.8 1.4 0.5 31.
4
N/A
1.1 31.1
0.9 20.9
Key: DW = Difficult words GR = Grammar
SPG = Spelling RDG = Reading
COMP = Composition SPKG = Speaking
IB = Inadequate books CMPR = Comprehension
WTG = Writing PRO = Pronunciation
60

TRA = Translation NMT = Not mother tongue
FU = Failing to Understand N/A = Not applicable
According to Tables 56 above, the most common problems pupils face in studying
English are “failing to understand”, followed by “difficult words”, and “spelling”
respectively. These problems are related and may, in fact, reflect on the teaching style
the teachers adopt at this level. There may be more emphasis put on rote learning than
understanding.
Table 57:
Nature Of Problems In Studying Chichewa
District DW GR SPG RDG SPKG COMP I
B
COMPR WTG TR
A
PRO NMT FU OTHE
R
Chitipa 6.8 0.8 0.8 3.0 1.5 0.8 2.3 2.3 0.8 75.6
Karonga 3.6 2.0 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 6.9 79.4
Rumphi 4.6 4.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.1 81.6
Mzimba 5.0 2.2 0.2 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.2 5.3 77.5
Nkhata
Bay
5.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.7 82.3
N/A
Key: DW = Difficult words GR = Grammar
SPG = Spelling RDG = Reading
COMP = Composition SPKG = Speaking
IB = Inadequate books CMPR = Comprehension
WTG = Writing PRO = Pronunciatio
TRA = Translation NMT = Not mother tongue
FU = Failing to understand N/A = Not applicable
Table 57 indicates that pupils find Chichewa “vocabulary” to be the most difficult aspect
in their study of the language followed by “spelling” and “pronunciation” respectively.
However, it should be noted that a very high percentage of the responses were not
applicable. This may suggest that as compared to English most of the pupils were not
quite sure of the nature of their problems with Chichewa.
A further question requested pupils to indicate whether or not science would be much
easier if it was taught in a mother tongue. The following results were obtained:
61

Table 58:
Would Science Be Taught In Mother Tongue
%Respondents
District
Yes
No
Chitipa 71.2 28.8
Karonga 47.2 52.8
Rumphi 56.3 43.7
Mzimba 62.9 35.9
Nkhata Bay 53.2 45.9
As Table 58 shows a majority of pupils believe that science would be easier in the mother
tongue. On the other hand, a significant percentage of the pupils believe the contrary to
be true. To most of these pupils, science in a mother tongue was simply inconceivable.
4.5.3.1 OTHER DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE
To supplement responses on language use in education, pupils were asked questions on
language use in other domains. In this section, the findings of these non­educational
domain will be presented.The pupils were requested to indicate which language they
would like to be used on the radio. The following are the results:
Table 59: Languages To Be Used On The Radio
% Respondents
District Engklish Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Ndali Sukwa Lambia Ngon Mambwe Yao Lomwe Tonga
i
Chitipa 8.3 48.5 28.8 1.5 1.5 0.8
Karonga 19.8 57.3 18.1 4.0 0.4 0.4
Rumphi 41.4 31.4 27.6
Mzimba 23.9 36.6 37.8 0.5
Nkhata
Bay
16.4 48.6 7.7 26.4
Following Table 59, the picture that ermeges is that the most preferred language among
pupils is Chichewa. This is not surprising because for nearly 30 years Chichewa has been
Malawi’s sole national language.
A futher question solicited answers on what languages the newspapers should be
published in. The following answers were obtained:
62

Table 60:
Language To Be Used In Newspapers
% Respondents
District English Tumbuka Nkhonde Ndali Sukwa Lambia Ngon Mambwe Yao Lomwe Tonga
i
Chitipa 18.2 26.5 3.0 8.3 0.8
Karonga 30.2 12.9 4.4 4.0 0.4
Rumphi 41.4 27.6
Mzimba 33.3 29.9 0.2
Nkhata
Bay
24.5 6.8 14.1
From Table 60, the most favoured language for use in newspapers among pupils is
Chichewa; followed by English and Chitumbuka respectively. The strong showing of
Chichewa and English should not be surprising in this domain because these two
languages have historically dominated newspaper publishing in the country.
Pupils were also asked to indicate which language they would like to be used in
parliament. The following answers were obtained:
Table 61:
Languages To Be Used In Parliament
District
English Chewa Tumbuka Nkho
nde
% Respondents
Ndali Sukwa Lam
bia
Ngon
i
Mam
bwe
Yao
Lo
mwe
Chitipa 31.8 48.5 12.9 0.8 0.8 9.1 1.5
Karonga 47.6 57.3 9.7 3.6 0.4
Rumphi 50.6 31.4 31.0
Mzimba 44.7 36.6 27.3
Nkhata
Bay
32.3 46.8 4.1 15.5
Tonga
Table 61 shows that English is the most preferred followed by Chichewa and
Chitumbuka respectively. The srong showing of English reflects the official nature of
Parliamnet. The logic seems to be that it is official, then it has to be in English since it is
the official language of the country..
63

A further question requested pupils to indicate what languages should be used in the
constitution. The responses are presented below:
Table 62:
Languages T o Be Used In Constitution
Dist
rict
Eng
lish
Che
wa
Chitipa 6.1 35.
6
Karonga 23.
0
Rumphi 28.
7
Mzimba 33.
3
Nkhata
Bay
32.
3
53.
0
21.
8
30.
4
46.
8
Tumb
uka
Nkho
nde
% Respondents
Ndali Sukwa Lam
bia
Ngo
nde
Mam
bwe
Yao Lomwe Tonga Ban
dia
28.8 0.8 3.8 19.7 2.3 0.8 0.8
19.4 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.4
49.4
34.9
4.1 15.5
Table 62 reveals that the most preferred language for use in government notices is
Chichewa, followed by English and Chitumbuka. The strong showing of both Chichewa
and English again reflects the official nature of the domain. In Chitipa, however, it
should be noted that there is a wide spread of local languages that have been mentioned.
This should not be difficult to appreciate since, according to hearsay, Chitipa has the
highest number of languages/dialects spoken in the country.
Pupils were also asked to indicate what languages they would like to be used in
government notices. The following results were obtained:
Table 63:
Language To Be Used In Government Notices
% Respondents
Dist Eng Chewa Tum Nkho Ndali Sukwa Lam Ngon Mam Yao Lomwe Tonga
rict lish buka nde
bia i bwe
Chitipa 8.3 48.5 28.8 1.5 1.5 0.8
Karonga 19.
8
57.3 18.1 4.0 0.4 0.4
64

Rumphi 41.
4
Mzimba 23.
9
Nkhata
Bay
16.
4
31.4 27.6
36.6 37.8 0.2 0.5
48.6 7.7 26.4
Table 63 reveals that the most preferred language for use in government notices is
Chichewa followed by English and Chitumbuka. The strong showing of both Chichewa
and English again reflects the official nature of the domain. In Chitipa, however, it
should be noted again that there is a wide spread of local languages that have been
mentioned. This reflects the linguistic complexity of the district.
Another question requested pupils to indicate what language(s) they would like to be
used in churches. The following results were obtained:
Table 64:
Language To Be Used In Church
District % Respondents
English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Chindali Chisukwa Bandia
Karonga 5.6 39.1 44.8 8.9 0.8 ­ ­ ­
Chitipa 3.0 23.5 37.1 4.5 ­ 3.8 8.3 15.9 2.3
Rumphi 2.3 20.7 77.0 ­ ­ ­ ­
Mzimba 6.7 24.9 67.2 ­ 0.5 ­ ­
Nkhata
Bay
4.5 40.9 18.2 0.5 35.0 ­ ­
In four districts, that is Chitipa, Karonga, Rumphi and Mzimba Chitumbuka was the most
preferred language followed by Chichewa as the language for use in church. The
extraordinary showing for Chitumbuka (77.0%) in Rumphi should not be surprising since
the district is generally perceived to be the ‘home’ of Chitumbuka in Malawi. Nkhata
Bay, however, stands out for preferring Chichewa first, Chitonga second and Chitumbuka
third.
Another question solicited pupils’ choices of language(s) to be used by social workers.
65

Below are the findings:
Table 65:
Language To Be Used By Social Workers
% Respondents
District English Chewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Chindali Chisukwa Bandia
Karonga 6.9 52.8 31.0 8.1 0.4 ­ ­ ­ ­
Chitipa 6.1 35.6 28.8 0.8 ­ 2.3 3.8 19.7 0.8
Rumphi 6.9 25.3 67.8 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Mzimba 9.3 34.9 54.5 ­ 0.2 ­ ­
Nkhata
Bay
16.8 44.5 9.5 0.5 27.3 ­ ­ ­ ­
In the two districts i.e Rumphi and Mzimba, the most preferred language in social work is
Chitumbuka, followed by Chichewa. However, in Karonga, Chitipa and Nkhata Bay,
Chichewa is the most preferred language. These results should not be surprissing
bacause these areas are not strictly Chitumbuka speaking areas.
Pupils were also asked to indicate their choices for the language to be used in hospitals.
This question produced the following results:
Table 66:
Language To Be Used In Hospitals
% Respondents
District English Chichewa Tumbuka Nkhonde Tonga Lambia Chindali Chisukwa Bandia
Karonga 7.3 52.0 34.3 5.6 0.4 ­ ­ ­
Chitipa 6.8 37.9 28.8 0.8 ­ 2.3 3.8 17.4 1.5
Rumphi 2.3 20.7 77.0 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Mzimba 11.0 37.6 50.7 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Nkhta
Bay
8.2 60.5 12.3 ­ 17.3 ­ ­ ­ ­
According to Table 66, three districts, Karonga, Chitipa and Nkhata Bay were in favour
of Chichewa. On the othe hand, Rumphi and Mzimba opted for Chitumbuka. The three
districts which favoured Chichewa are not traditionally Chitumbuka speaking areas. The
66

case for Nkhata Bay is that Chitonga comes second, English comes third, and
Chitumbuka occupies the fourth position.
4.5.3.2 SUMMARY OF SECTION
The data approved above presents the following crucial facts:
(i)
that the majority of pupils encounter difficulties learning English. A
staggering 70.75% said they encountered problems and isolated failure
to understand and vocabulary as being the main areas of difficulty.
(ii)
that 78.4% of pupils from the five districts have no problems studying
in Chichewa
(iii)
that 58.7% of pupils said they do not want to learn in Chitumbuka
(iv)
that the majority of those who indicated that they want to learn in
Chitumbuka said they would prefer to learn in Chitumbuka in
standards 1 to 8.
(v)
that the majority of the pupils who did not want to learn through
Chitumbuka wanted to be taught in English, followed by Chichewa.
(vi)
that 57.9% of pupils said that they would find science easier if it were
taught in the mother tongue.
The fact that the pupils face considerable problems in English (cf.point (i) ) and yet they
still want to be taught in English (cf.point(v) ) and not in Chitumbuka shows the great
value they attach to English.
4.6 SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The survey sought to find out, in addition, whether or not there are correlations between
certain categories. An interesting correlation was revealed between sex and the ability to
read and write Chitumbuka. This correlation is shown in Table 67:
Table 67:
Ability To Read And Write Chitumbuka Vs Sex
67

% Respondents
Sex
Yes No Yes No
Male 40.4 8.6 38.3 10.7
Female 34.2 15.4 30.9 18.7
Thus from Table 67, 40.4% of the male parents/guardians could read Chitumbuka and
38.3% could write on the one hand, while on the other hand 34.2% of the female
parents/guardians could read and 30.9% could write. This correlation could be explained
by the fact that traditionally in Malawi female and male children have not been given
equal educational opportunities. The male child has always been favoured, hence the
rather high level of literacy among the male guardians. It is hoped that with the
introduction of free primary school education and positive discrimination in favour of the
girl child, literacy between males and females wil be the same.
The survey also sought to find out whether there is a correlation between
parents/guardians wanting their children to be taught in Chitumbuka and the age of the
respondents. The following correlations were obtained:
Table 68:
Liking Children To Be Taught In Chitumbuka Vs Age
Age % Respondents
Yes
15­19 3.3 2.3
20­24 15.1 5.8
25­29 11.9 4.2
30­34 10.2 3.3
35­39 8.3 3.0
40­44 3.8 1.8
45­49 4.8 0.4
50­54 3.5 0.7
55­59 3.0
60­64 5.0 0.4
65­69 0.6 0.4
71 above 1.5 0.6
No
68

Table 68 reveals that there is an interesting correlation between the parents/guardians
liking their child to be taught in Chitumbuka and the age of the parents/guardians. Those
between the 20­24 (15.1%) recorded the highest liking followed by the 25­29 (11.9%)
age bracket, then 30­34 (10.2%) and 35­39(8.3%) respectively. It can be observed that
generally as the age increases the number of parents/guardians wanting their chidren to
be taught in Chitumbuka decreases. This observation can be explained by the fact that
after 40 years, of age most people lead a settled life and tend to accept what has already
established. Change is usually frowned upon hence they tend to accept the status quo. In
this case, therefore, the introduction of Chitumbuka would create a lot of uncertanities
which is deemed unnecessary.
Another question which was correlated with age is whether or not language is a
contributing factor to pupils’ failure in infant classes. The following results wee
obtained:
Table 69:
Language As A Contributing Factor To Failure Vs Age
Age %Respondents
Yes
No
15 – 19 3.7 1.8
20 ­ 24 13.9 6.5
25 – 29 11.0 5.1
30 ­ 34 9.2 4.1
35 – 39 8.4 2.8
40 – 44 4.1 2.1
45 – 49 4.0 1.3
50 ­ 54 3.9 0.7
55 ­ 59 2.3 0.9
60 ­ 64 3.8 2.1
65 – 69 2.1 0.4
70 above 2.3 0.7
Table 69 shows that there is a correlation between age and belief in language as a
contributing factor to pupils’ failure are found in the majority in the 20 – 24 age bracket.
These constitute 13.9% followed by the 25 – 29 (11.0%) age bracket, 30 – 34 (9.2%) age
bracket and 35 – 39 (8.4%) age bracket. Here again, the numbers begin to decrease as the
69

age increases. A plausible explanation for this phenomenon seems to be that as age
increases the less the parents/guardians remember about their linguistic problems at
school.
4.7 CONCLUSIONS
The picture that emerges from the findings is that in general, teachers support the mother
tongue instruction policy. Despite acknowledging the lack of teaching/learning materials,
the teachers are nevertheless determined to implement the policy.
The guardians/parents too are in support of mother tongue instruction. Pupils, on the
other hand, have different perceptions from their teachers and guardians: pupils have
rejected the mother tongue policy. The majority of the pupils would like to learn through
English, with Chichewa as the second choice. The high affinity for English is not dificult
to account for given that English is the language for social, economic and political
advancement. The mother tongues, on the other hand, have a very negligible impact on
one’s personal advancement. Pupils also recognise the importance of Chichewa as a
national lingua franca and as a language currently in use in a number of official domains
in the country. Chitumbuka is viewed by pupils as a local language which does not have
the social, political and economic power they require in life. This clash between pupils
on the one hand and parents/guardians and teachers on the other hand, is something that
policy makers must handle with care.
It is also important to mention that Chichewa has firmly established itself as the national
lingua franca for the whole country so much so that one cannot realistically talk of a
Chitumbuka speaking area that has not felt the impact of Chichewa. For example, the
pupils’ second most preferred language of instruction is Chichewa. In the case of
parents/guardians who speak more than one language, the other most spoken language
(apart from Chitumbuka) is Chichewa. The same picture emerges from the pupils. This
is evidence that Chichewa has over the years firmly established itself even in traditional
non­Chichewa speaking areas.
Whilst it is true that Chitumbuka is the most dominant language in the Northern Region,
it is worthwhile to recognise the presence of smaller but prominent languages.
Languages such as Chindali in Chitipa, Nkhonde in Karonga, and Chitonga in Nkhata
Bay pose as powerful rivals to Chitumbuka. Infact, the three districts under review are
not strictly speaking Chitumbuka dominated areas. In the case of Nkhata Bay, there is
aclear rejection of Chitumbuka as the language for various domains: Chichewa has a
strong showing in Nkhata Bay, with Chitonga coming second. In a nutshell, the findings
of the survey indicate that while Mzimba and Rumphi are unquestionable strongholds for
70

Chitumbuka, the same cannot be said to be true for Chitipa, Karonga and Nkhata Bay.
Techinically speaking, it is not accurate to label the entire Northern Region as a
Chitumbuka­speaking area. If and when Chitumbuka is introduced as one of the media
of instruction in Malawi, the linguistic picture presented above will have to be seriously
taken into consideration.
4.8 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(i)
The results of the survey show clearly that teachers and parents/guardians are
in favour of using local languages in schools. The ministry of Education
should therefore go ahead with the mother tongue instruction policy. Given
that pupils have a strong preference for English as a medium of instruction
and a subject of mstudy, the position of English in the primary school
curriculum should be strengthened. Currently there is misconception thath the
mother tongue policy means doing away with English as a subject of study.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The Ministry of Education should develop teacher programmes to cater for the
mother tongue instruction policy given that the current programmes only cater
for two languages of instruction, namely, English and Chichewa.
There is also urgent need for the Malawi Institute of Education and its
professional partners to develop teaching and learning materials in
Chitumbuka since these are not available. The required materials include
grammar books, dictionaries, teacher’s guides, literary books etc.
The Chitumbuka dialect spoken in Rumphi was identified by the majority of
the respondents as the best. The Ministrry of Education is therefore strongly
encouraged to adopt this dialect for use in the mother tongue instruction
policy if and when it gets implemented.
The role of Chichewa as a lingua franca should still be recognised and
maintained. The Ministry of Education’s special attention is drawn to the
findings from Nkhata Bay where the majority of the respondents favour the
use of Chichewa in a number of domains as opposed to Chitumbuka which is
widely spoken in Rumphi and Mzimba. Furthermore, the fact that
Chitumbuka is not favoured in Nkhata Bay and parts of Karonga should be
considered seriously.
There should be meaningful cooperation and information flow between
various partners in the Education sector e.g. betwen the Ministry of Education,
the Malawi Institute of Education, the University of Malawi and the donor
community. Such cooperation would cut down waste of resources as well as
71

duplication of efforts.
5 CHILOMWE SURVEY
5.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
The centre for Language Studies caried out a sociolingustic survey of Chilomwe speaking
areas of Thyolo, Mulanje and Phalombe districts between the 2 nd and 8 th December, 1998.
Prior to the main survey, a pilot survey was conducted at Phalombe and Khonjeni
(Thyolo) from 19 th to 22 nd November, 1998.
The Chilomwe survey was a third in a series of language surveys whose goal is to
determine the acceptance and practicality of using mother tongues as media of instruction
in standards 1 to 4.
5.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The general objective of the survey was to determine the need and relevance as well as
the acceptability of using Chilomwe as a medium of instruction in the Chilomwe
speaking areas of Thyolo, Mulanje, and Phalombe.
5.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The survey had the following as its specific objectives:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
To determine parents’, pupils’ and teachers attitudes towards the use of
Chilomwe as a school subject and as a medium of instructiion.
T o establish attitudes of Chilomwe speakers towards Chichewa as a subject
and as a medium of instruction.
To establish teachers’ competence in using Chilmwe as a meduim of
instruction.
To determine the availability of teaching/learning materials to support
Chilomwe as a medium of instruction.
To confirm/disconfirm the claim that the Lomwes find it embarrassing to
speak their mother tongue.
To confirm/disconfirm the claim that Chiomwe is a dying language.
72

(vii)
(viii)
To establish whether there are other languages that can serve as media of
instruction in schools.
To make relevant recommendations to GTZ/MITEP, TDU, the Malawi
Institute of Education, and the Ministry of Education on teacher training and
learning/teaching materials.
5.4 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
5.4.1 POPULATION
The survey involved 740 respondents, of which 357 were pupils, 240 were
parents/guardians; 29 were teachers; and 114 placed in the “other” category.
Respondents in all the categories were randomly selected and then interviewed by
research team.
5.4.2 PROCEDURE
Data were collected mainly through interactive interviews with 740 randomly selected
subjects in Mulanje, Thyolo and Phalombe districts. A questionnarie was admnistered to
each respondent by members of the research team. The questionnaire, which had both
open ended and closed items sought to find out the following, among other things:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
general information about the respondents – sex, age, marital status, level of
education, etc.
proficiency in Chilomwe and other languages.
views on the use of Chilomwe as a medium of instruction/subject for study.
teachers’ competence in using Chilomwe as a medium of instruction/subject
for study.
views on whether or not it is embarrassing to speak Chilomwe.
availability of learning/teaching materials written in Chilomwe.
The data collection procedure was as follows: researchers read out questions to which the
subjects responded. The answers were then recorded on the questionnaire by the
researchers. One of the items on the questionnaire was a 25 item wordlist in which
responjdets were asked to state whether they knew the Chilomwe words. This was
followed by a dialogue which was read out by the reasearchers. The respondents’ task
was to summarise the dialogue. The two tests were aimed at determining the
73

espondents’ level of competence in Chilomwe.
It has to be mentioned that some data were collected through observation and literature
survey. The researchers were equipped with notepads in which they recorded any
relevant sociolinguistic observations. These observations were done during both official
working and off duty hours.
5.4.3 DATA COLLECTORS
The data collection exercise was done by a team comprising four principal researchers
and eight research assistants. The eight research assistants, whose minimum qualification
was a Malawi School Certificate of Education, were trained in the use of the
questionnnaire. They were briefed adequately on the survey’s aims and objectives. Each
of thr research assistant were native speakers of Chilomwe.
5.4.4 DATA ANALYSIS
The data were edited, coded and then entered in a computer. The SPSS was used tio
analyse the dta. Frequencies, percentages and cross tabulations were done for all the
categories of respondents, namely pupils, teachers, parents/guardians, and the “others”.
5.4.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE SURVEY
The major problem was that the survey was conducted at a time when schools were
closed for the long vacation. Getting teachers was a problem since not all teachers live
nearby schools. The majority of the teachers live in rented houses far away from schools.
Getting parents/guardians and pupils as respondents was, however, not difficult. The
second problem was that since the survey was conducted during a crop growing season,
some responents were reluctant to temporarily abandon their garden tasks and talk to the
researchers. A related problem is that given that the survey was conducted in the rain
season, some earth roads proved to be impassable, even with the availability of 4 wheeel
drive vehicles. A case in point is Chiringa area in Phalombe which was never surveyed
due to heavy rains which rendered the roads impassable. Related to this is the presence
of bad terrain which made travelling difficult. One example is that of Molere and
Thekerani areas which were not fully covered due to inaccessibility of certain parts.
In some cases, the research team was mistakenly identified as a government group
responsible for distrributing free seed and fertiliser to local communities. In such a case,
74

the villagers would also ask the research team to convey to government their problems
e.g. lack of social amenities like hospitals and boreholes. In more extreme cases, some
respondents were unwiling to be interviewed once thet realized that the tem was not
working for the government.
Due to the problems cited above, it became impossible for the research team to achieve
its targets of interviewing 1,000 respondents. Instead, 740 were interviewed. This figure
is still adequate for the purposes of the survey and has enabled the principal researchers
to make meaningful generalizations and conclusions in relation to the objectives of the
survey.
5.4.6 SOME DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS
In this section, we provide information on the sex, age and levels of education of the
respondents. As stated earlier the survey had four types of respondents, namely
parents/guardians, pupils, teachers, and others. The total population was 740. Out of the
740 respondents, 357 (48.2%) were pupils; 240 (32.4%) were parents/guardians, 114
(15.4%) were in the ‘Other category; whiklst 29 (3.9%) were teachers. The distribution
of the respondents per district was as follows: Thyolo – 366 (49.5%); Mulanje – 191
(25.8%) and Phalombe – 180 (24.3%).
In terms of age, the age range 15 ­19 years constituted the largest group with 234
(31.6%). The second largest age group was 10­ 14 years old with 152 respondents
(20.5%). The third largest age group was 20­24 years with 119 respondents 916.1%).
The age groups 21 ­29 came fourth with 61 (8.2%) respondents. Other age ranges above
29 years were in lower percentages.
The distribution of the respondents according to sex is as follows: males 48 (58.1%) and
females 290 (39.2%). 20 questionnaires (2.7%) were inadvertently left unmarked in
terms of sex.
Of the 740 respondents, 299 (40.4%) claimed that they were able to speak Chilomwe.
439 (59.3%) of the respondents stated that they were not speakersof Chilomwe. 2 (0.3%)
of the respondents were not identified in terms of whether they spoke Chilomwe or not.
The majority of the respondents (40%) had primary education below the Primary School
Leaving Certificate Level. 15.8% of the respondents indicated that they had no formal
education whilst 10.0% had a Junior Cerificate. 9.3% of the respondents had Primary
School Leaving Cerrtificate.
75

5.5 RESPONSES FROM VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS
5.5.1 PUPILS’ RESPONSES
In this section, we present responses received from the various categories of respondents.
This section is devoted to responses made by pupils. The pupils were drawn from the
three disricts as follows:
Thyolo with 210 (58.8%), Mulanje 74 (20.7%) and Phalombe 72 (20.2%) and 1
questionnaire (0.3%) was undocumented, giving a total population of 357 pupils. 226
(63.3%) of the pupils were male whilst 119 (33.3%) were female. 12 (3.3% of the
respondents) were undocumented.
The 15­19 years old age group with 167 respondents (46.8%) constituted the largest age
group followed by the 10­14 years group with 139 (38.9%); followed by the 20­24 years
group with 31 (8.8 %) of the respondents.
Of the 357 pupils, 74 (20.7%) stated that they were able to speak Chilomwe whilst 282
(79.0 %) indicated that they were not speakers of Chilomwe. One questionnaire (0.3%)
was undocumented.
Respondents were asked to identify a place where they thought the best Chilomwe is
spoken. The majorirty of the pupils 231 (64.7%) did not know the answer (referred to in
table 70 as “don’t know place”). 40 respondents (11.2%) cited Mulanje or areas within
Mulanje district; 36 respondents (10.1%) mentioned Phalombe; Thyolo was the next,
cited by 27 respondents (7.6%). Mozambique was mentioned by 22 respondents (6.2%).
Those who mentioned Mozambique said the Malawian dialects of Lomwe were somehow
diluted; leaving the Mozambique variety as the pure one.
Table 70:
Where Best Chilomwe is Spoken
Place Frequency %
Phalombe 36 10.1
Mulanje 40 11.2
Thyolo 27 7.6
76

Chiradzulu 1 0.3
Mozambique 22 6.2
Dont know place 231 64.7
A related question asked the pupils to identify the variety of Chilomwe which would be
the most appropriate for use in schools. The vast majority of the pupils 279 (78.2%) did
not provide an answer to the question, 23 (6.4%) of the pupils cited Chikokhola; 16
(4.5%) mentioned the Mulanje variety. It is the researchers’ conclusion that the Mulanje
variety is an umbrella term taking care of a number of dialects.
See Table 71 for a detailed account of the responses.
Table 71:
Chilomwe Variety Most Appropriate for Schools
Variety Frequency %
Chitakhwani 5 1.4
Chikokhola 23 6.5
Chimihavani 9 2.5
Mulanje 16 4.5
Chimwinyamwero 7 2.0
Chimarenje 6 1.7
The respondents were then asked whether or not they would like to be taught in
Chilomwe. The majority of the pupils 241 (67.5%) gave a Yes answer whilst 112
(31.4%) gave a No answer. The remaining 1.1% of the respondents were undecided.
Table 72 captures these responses.
Table 72:
To be taught In Chilomwe?
77

Frequency %
Yes 241 67.5
No 112 31.4
Undecided 4 1.1
Those pupils who did not accept the idea of being taught in Chilomwe were then asked to
identify Chilomwe’s alternative. 49 (13.7%) of the respondents cited Chichewa as their
preferred medium of instrcuction. 33 (9.2%) of the pupils mentioned English. 26 (7.3%)
of the pupils chose a combination of English and Chichewa as medium of instruction as
indicated in Table 73.
The pupils were also aked whether or not it was embarrassing to speak Chilomwe. A
small minority 21 (5.9%) of the respondents said Yes; and small majority 86 (24.1%) said
No. A significant majority 250 (70.0%) of the pupils were unable to give an answer to
the question, hence no responses were recorded. This translates into 19.7% of those who
gave responses as having stated that they find it embarrassed to speak the language.
As related question wanted to find out whether the respondents feel embarrassed to
identufy themselves as Lomwes. 7 (2.0%) of the respondetnts said Yes whilst 153
(42.9%) of the respondents said No. 197 (55.2%) of the respondetnts were unable to
provide an answer. Of the 160 respondents who answered the question, only 7 (4.4%)
indicated that they find it embarrasing to identify themselves with the said ethinic group.
Table 73:
Alternative To Chilomwe As Medium Of Instruction
Language Frequency %
Chichewa 49 13.8
English 33 9.2
English and Chichewa 26 7.3
Chichewa and Chitonga 1 0.3
Chiyao 3 0.8
French + Chichewa + 2 0.6
English
Chitumbuka 1 0.3
78

Undecided 1 0.3
The results presented above show that the pupils have clearly opted for Chilomwe as a
medium of instruction and it is also interesting to note that the same pupils also claim that
they have no problems in studying another local language, Chichewa. A significant
majorityof them 318 (89.1%) claimed that they have no problems with Chichewa as a
medium of instruction (Refer to Table 74):
Table 74:
Probelms With Study In Chichewa?
Frequency %
Yes 35 9.8
No 318 89.1
Undecided 4 1.1
A related question asked pupils whether or not they had problems studying in English, a
non­indigenous language. The majority of the pupils 219 (61.5%) stated that they had
problems with studying in English whilst 13 (36.4%) claimed that they had no problems
with studying in English (refer to Table 75 for the results).
Table 75:
Problems With Studying In English?
Frequency %
Yes 219 61.5
No 130 36.5
Undecided 8 2.3
5.5.1.1 SUMMARY OF PUPILS’ RESPONSES
Form the responses given by the pupils, it is clear that the pupils have accepted
Chilomwe as a medium of instruction. They, furthermore, indicate that they have no
problems with Chichewa, the national language, as a medium of instruction. In fact, the
79

pupils have Chichewa as an alternative to Chilomwe as a medium of instruction. The
pupils’ responses indicate clearly that the learners have significant problems with
studying in English. It is obvious from the findings that the pupils are more comfortable
with local languages as media of instruction than with English, a foreign tongue.
The fact that pupils welcome the introduction of Chilomwe as a medium of instruction
shows that there is now a growing positive attitude towards Lomwe. Matiki’s (1996/97)
study on Chilomwe reports that it had 31.4% of the respondents claiming that they find it
embarrasing to speak Chilomwe. The curent survey’s findings show that pupils display a
positive attitude towards Chilomwe. The recent elevation of Chilomwe as one of the
languages for newcasts on the national radio is one possible factor that could have
instilled a sense of pride in the Lomwes. The new political dispensation in Malawi has
created room for linguistic liberalisation, giving people the opportunity to freely promote
their languages. This is in contrast to the one party state era during which vernacular
languages were marginalised and despised.
5.5.2 PARENTS’/GUARDIANS’ RESPONSES
In this section we present responses made by parents’/guardians from the districts of
Thyolo, Mulanje and Phalombe were interviewed in the following proportions: Thyolo
(92), Mulanje (81), Phalombe (64). 2 were not documented. Their age ranges were
recorded in Table 76.
Table 76:
Age Range For Parents/Guardians
Age Range No. of Respondents Percentage
20­24 42 17.6
25­29 40 16.7
30­34 36 15.1
35­39 39 16.3
40­44 21 8.8
45­50 18 7.5
50­54 13 5.4
55­59 2 0.8
60­64 5 2.1
65­69 1 0.4
70 and above 3 1.3
80

There were 19 cases of respondents who were aged below 20 who were also put in the
category of parents/guardians because they could not fit in any of the other groups due to
certain personal peculiarities.
5.5.2.1 SEX
Out of the 239 interviewees, 106 (44.4%) were male and 128 (53.6%) were female.
There were 5 (2.1%) cases which were inadvertently not documented.
5.5.2.2 QUALIFICATIONS
The educational background of the respondents was as shown in Table 77.
Table 77:
Parents/Guardians’ Qualification
Level of Education No. of Respondents Percentage
No formal education 88 36.8
Below PSLC 98 41
PSLC 26 10.9
JC 13 5.4
MSCE 10 4.2
Diploma and Above 1 0.4
There were 167 respondents (representing 69.9%) who indicated that they were
Chilomwe speakers while 72 (30.1%) said they did not fully speak the language. The
difficulty here is that there were some respondents who claimed not to speak Chilomwe
but who, nevertheless, showed sufficient competence in the language when later
presented with a proficiency test. This appears to have been so particularly with those
who felt that their Chilomwe was mixed with some Chichewa but who strictly speaking,
ought to have been regarded as Chilomwe speakers. This, therefore, means that in
reality, the figure of 69.9% given above for Chilomwe speakers is an under
representation.
81

Out of the 239 respondents who were interviewed in the survey, 185 (respresenting
77.4%) also claimed to speak other languages and 61.1% of this group said they were
competent speakers of Chichewa. This observation, like in other sociolinguistic surveys
the Center has caried out further shows the strong influence, dominance and widespread
nature of Chichewa as the country’s lingua franca. This finding provides collaborating
evidence indicating that nearly 75% of Malawians are able to speak Chichewa (in
addition to whatever language they may use as their mother tongue).
5.5.2.3 VARIETIES OF CHILOMWE
Although some respondents were able to identify some dialects or varieties of Chilomwe
spoken in their areas, it is interesting to note that 43.1% were not aware of any varieties
of Chilomwe at all. This is particularly striking because other researchers on Chilomwe
have independently noted that the language has more dialects than any other single
Malawian language. One would, therefore, expect its speakers to be aware of them.
Details of responses to the awareness of the existence of varieties are presented in Table
78.
Table 78:
Varieties of Chilomwe Known By Parents/Guardians
Variety
No. of Respondents Aware Percentage
of the Variety
Chithakhwani 23 9.6
Chikhokhola 54 22.6
Chimihavani 35 14.6
Chimarenje 18 7.5
Chimarevoni 1 0.4
Chingulu 1 0.4
Chishirima 1 0.4
Chimanyawa 2 0.8
Chitengwa 1 0.4
Don’t know 103 43.1
82

On the question of whether the respondents find it embarrasing to speak Chilomwe or to
identify themselves as Lomwes, 152 respondents (63.6%) said they have no problems
speaking the language in public, 21 (8.8%) said they are embarrassed to speak Chilomwe
while 66 (27.6%) were not affected because they were not speakers of the language.
Similarly, 180 of the respondents (75.3%) indicated that they are not ashamed of
identifying themselves as Lomwes. These facts show that Lomwes have a very positive
attitude towards themselves as an ethnic groups and their language as well. This
obseravtion is inconsistent with the claims of earlier studies on the Lomwe (e.g Matiki
1996/97 and Boeder 1984) which portrayed them as an ethinic group which has negative
attitudes towards itself and its language.
In response to the question on whether the Parents/Guardians would like pupils to learn in
Chichewa, an overwhelming majority of 212 respondents (88.7%) answered positively.
Similarly, when asked if tghey would like pupils to be taught in Chilomwe, 185 (77.4%)
of the parents/guardians responded affirmatively.
These facts clearly indicate that as a group of parents/guardians from Chilomwe speaking
areas, the respondents positively welcome the use of Chichewa and, more importantly,
Chilomwe as media of instruction in primary education. This obseravtion also concurs
with the findings from the Chitumbuka and Chiyao language surveys where
guardians/parents also overwhelmingly supported the introduction of those vernacular
languages as media of instuction in primary schools in Malawi.
5.5.3 TEACHERS’ RESPONSES
Another section of the questionnaire set out to elicit responses from teachers teaching in
primary schools that are located in the Chilomwe speaking areas of Thyolo, Mulanje and
Phalombe. The responses to this section among other things are meant to highlight the
possible percentage of teachers who are native apeakers of Chilomwe as well as give an
indication of the number of teachers teaching in the Chilomwe speaking areas but who
speak other languages. The responses in the section are also meant to reveal the attitude
of the teachers whose mother tongue is Chilomwe. Specifically, the responses are
supposed to reflect the teachers’ attitudes towards Chilomwe. More importantly, it was
vital to find out whether or not the teachers were ready to teach in Chilomwe. In
addition, it was also pertinent to discover from the resoponses whether or not the teachers
had any instructional materials for the teaching of Chilomwe and whether or not they
83

accept the introduction of mother tongue instruction. Some of the questions were similar
to those also asked in the other sections of the questionnaire such as the respondents’
knowledge of other varieties of Chilomwe and the areas the varieties were spoken.
Out of all the 29 teachers interviewed, the survey found out that 11 (37.9%) spoke
Chilomwe whereas 18 (62.1%) claimed that they did not. Asked whether they spoke
other lnguages, Chichewa, English and Chiyao were cited predominantly. Some of the
respondents went on to enumerate the varieties of Chilomwe they spoke as follows:
Chikokhola, Chimihavani, Chimwinyamwero, Chitakhwani, Chimeeto, Chimarenje and
Chimanyawa.
The question on attitude was intended to find out whether or not the teachers found it
embarrasing to speak Chilomwe. 13 (44.8%) of the respondents who said they spoke the
language said they were not embarrassed while 3.4% said they were. 15 (51.7%) of the
respondents were undecided, hence they gave no response. The following question
aimed at getting respondents’ reaction to their being Lomwes. 16 (55.2%) said they were
not embarrassed to belong to the Lomwe ethnic group whereas 3.4% said they were. 12
(41.4%) did not give any response to the question.
The following responses impinge directly on the main aim and specific goals of the
survey. The first question asked the teachers whether they would accept Chilomwe in
schools. 12 (41.4%) accepted Chilomwe in schools; with 4% rejecting the language. 16
(55.2%) were undecided, hence no responses were given. Asked whether or not they
would accept Chilomwe as a medium of instruction, 7 (24.1%) said YES while 6 (20.7%)
said NO. The remaining 16 respondents (55.6%) did not give any answer.
Another question sought to find out what languages the teachers were trained to teach.
12 respondents (41.4%) said they were trained to teach Chichewa and English. The
remaining 17 respondents (58.6%) did not give any response because they were
temporary teachers who never received formal teacher training. The respondents were
then asked which variety of Chilomwe would be the most appropriate for teaching in
schools. Chimihavani topped the list with 17.2% of the respondents citing it, while
Chitakhwani and Chikokhola tied at 6.9% each. 3.4% said Chimanyawa would be most
appropriate. The majority of the respondents were unable to provide an answer to this
question. See Table 79.
Table 79:
Chilomwe Variety Most Appropriate for Teaching
Variety Frequency %
84

Chitakhwani 2 6.9
Chikokhola 2 6.9
Chimihavani 5 17.2
Chimanyawa 2 3.4
Don’t know 19 65.5
5.5.3.1 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
It is pertinent to point out from the onset that the number of respondents of the above
portion of the questionnaire is small in comparison to the number of respondents in the
other categories. The reason for this is straightforward. The survey, as pointed out
earlier, was carried out during the school holidays and although a number of schools were
visited it was not possible to interview a greater and perhaps more representative number
of teachers. It is hoped, however, that the trend that was set by the earlier surveys on
Chiyao and Chitumbuka will be reflected here as well.
The initial observation that need to be made is that although the survey was made in a
largely Chilomwe speaking area, 62.1% of the teachers said they did not speak the
language. There are two reasons for this. The first is that teachers in Malawi in the
majority of cases can be posted to teach any where in the country. This accounts for the
presence of non­Chilomwe speakers in areas which are otherwise predominantly
Chilomwe speaking areas. The second reason has been cited in the literature, i.e.later
generations of Lomwe children have shown tendencies towards language shift for factors
which need not concern us here (Kayambazinthu 1998/90, Matiki 1996/97).
It is interesting to note that there appears to be marked change in the attitude of
Chilomwe speakers towards their language. 13 (44.8%) of the teachers indicated that
they were not embarrased to speak Chilomwe. This is in itself very important. If a
mother tongue has to be introduced as a medium of instruction or as a subject, it is
imperative that the potential personnel that will deliver the service should not have
negative attitudes towards the language.
A follow up observation from the above has to do with the acceptability at least in
principle, of the introduction of Chilomwe in schools. 41.3% of the teachers, it should be
recalled, said they would welcome the introduction of Chilomwe in schools. Success of
the policy for mother tongue instruction would parlty be determined by the acceptance of
such policy by the teachers themselves.
85

Since 41.4% of the teachers interviewed said they were trained to teach Chichewa and
English (whilst 58.6% were untrained ), it is crucial that if a policy of mother tongue
instruction was to be implemented successfully, teaching and learning materials would
have to be prepared in addition to the training of language teachers. All the 29 teachers
(100%) interviewed had indicated thet they had no teaching and learning materials
written in Chilomwe. As a special case, training of the temporary and untrained teachers
should be given high consideration.
5.5.4 OTHER RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSES
In addition to interviewing pupils, teachers, parents and guardians a fourth category of
respondents was included. This group included respondents who did not fit in any of the
categories named earlier due to their peculiar nature. It was crucial to have an idea of the
views and opinions of respondents who had just left the school system as well as those
who had left it sometime back or had never been part of it at all but could not have been
regarded as parents/guardians because they were below the responsible age of a
guardian/parent. A total of 108 respondents were interviewed for this category.
45 respondents (41.7%) said they spoke Chilomwe whereas 62 (57.4%) said they did not.
There were other languages that the respondents said they spoke, namely, Chichewa,
Chisena, Chitonga, Portuguese, French, Chiyao, Chitumbuka and English. Asked
whether or not they found it embarrrasing to speak Chilomwe 40.7% said they were not
while 10.2% said they were whilst 49.1% were undecided, hence no response.
Asked the corollary question whether or not they were embarrsed to identify themselves
as Lomwe, 62% of the rresponents said they were not embarrsed to be identified as
Lomwes whereas 4.6% said they were. 33.3% of the respondeents did not respond to this
question.
Asked whether or not they had problems studying in Engish during their school days
45.4% answered in the affirmative while 22.2% said they had no problems, and the
remainder 32.4% were unable to give a definite response.
This category was also asked whether it would have liked to have been taught in
Chilomwe. 54.6% were positive while 13.9% were negative. The remaining 31.5% were
undecided, hence they gave no responses.
86

5.5.4.1 SUMMARY
Although this category had left the school system or had never been part of it in any
direct manner, it is still important that in general terms it supports the earlier findings
among the teachers. For instance, many respondents in this category do not find it
embarrassing to speak Chilomwe, neither do they find it embarrassing to identify
themselves as Lomwes. These respondents have also indicated their wilingness for
Chilomwe to be used in schools. The responses from the group also indicate that
English, in general, causes problems for learners in schools while Chichewa does not.
5.6 CONCLUSIONS
There are a number of conclusions which can be drawn from the data presented above:
1) That the majority of Lomwes have a positive attitude towards their ethnic group and
their language, which contradicts the pervasive myths that the Lomwes do not have
pride in their language and culture;
2) That the majority of pupils (67.5%) in Chilomwe speaking areas would like to be
taught in Chilomwe;
3) That the majority of their parents/guardians (77.5%) support the idea of having their
wards taught in Chilomwe;
4) That a samll majority of teachers (41.4%) would accept Chilomwe in the schools;
5) That Chichewa has permeated every fabric of Lomwe soceity thereby making Lomwe
societies bilingual/multlingual.
The implications following from the above conclusions are that; first, were Chilomwe to
be introduced as a medium of instruction in the said areas, it would be accepted by the
majority of the people. This entails that the MOE should start thinking of training
teachers and preparing materials in this language. However, before that exercise is
undertaken, the MOE should examine the possibility of using the Chimihavani variety as
the “standard” and devising a standard orthography based on it.
87

Secondly, although in Chilomwe speaking areas, the mjority (59.3%) did not speak the
language, the same applied to the majority of the teachers (62.1%). This means that the
majority of the respondents were competent in Chichewa and not Chilomwe. This
implies that even in the so­called Chilomwe speaking areas, Chichewa is the lingua
franca. This explains why a majority of pupils (89.1%) do not have difficulties with
Chichewa. The MOE, therefore, should recognise that Chichewa will have to be taught
in these areas since it plays a very important role in these highly bilingual areas.
5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
i) The results of the survey show clearly that pupils, teachers and parents/guardinas
are in favour of using Chilomwe in the schools. The MOE should therefore
proceed with the mother tongue instructiion policy.
ii)
The MOE should develop teacher training programmes to cater for the mother
tongue instruction policy given that the current programmes only cater for two
languages of instruction, namely, English and Chichewa
iii)
There is also an urgent need for the MIE and its proffessional partners to develop
teaching and learning materials in Chilomwe since these are non­existent. The
required books include primers, teachers guides, elementary grammars and
dictionaries.
iv)
The Chimihavani dialect was identified by the majority of the teachers. Since the
majority of respondents did not know anything about varieties, the teachers choice
should be used for teaching if and when the mother tongue policy is implemented.
v) The role of Chichewa as a national lingua franca should be recognised and
maintaned. The MOE special attention is drawn to the finding that most of the
respondents did in fact speak Chichewa and not Chilomwe.
vi)
In discussing matters of language policy in education, there should be meaningful
co­operation and information flow between various partners in the education
sector, e.g. between the MOE, the MIE, the University of Malawi and the donor
agencies. Such co­operation would avoid wasting resources as well as duplicating
efforts.
88

6 CHISENA SURVEY
6.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
From 9 th to 15 th December, 1998, the Centre for Language Studies carried out a
socioligustic survey of Chisena speaking areas of Malawi namely Chikwawa and Nsanje
districts.
6.5 GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The survey’s general objective was to determine the acceptability and relevance of using
Chisena as a medium of instruction in the first four classes of the primary school.
6.3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The following specific objectives were formulated:
i) To determine the number and names of dialects of Chisena spoken in Malawi
ii)
To establish attitudes of Chisena speakers towards Chichewa as a subject, a
medium of instruction and as a national language.
iii)
To establish attitudes of Senas towards their language and culture.
iv)
To establish the degree of language loyalty and attachment in order to predict
future tendencies towards language shift or maintenance.
v) To test the claim that the use of Chisena as a mother tongue or second
language is decreasing considerably.
vi)
vii)
To determine zones where the need for use of Chisena in schools is most felt.
To establish whether or not Chisena­speaking children acquire proficiency in
89

Chichewa at the end of their first year in school.
viii)
ix)
To establish teachers’ competence in using Chisena as a medium of
instruction.
To establish what language(s) teachers use for instruction in the first two years
of pupils’ school life.
x) To determine the magnitude of teachers whose first language is Chisena.
xi)
To determine the availability of teaching/learning materials to support
Chisena as a medium of instruction.
xii)
To establish whether there are languages other than Chisena that can serve as
media of instruction in schools.
xiii)
To make relevant recommendations to GTZ/MITEP, TDU, the Malawi
Institute of Education, and the Ministry of Education on teacher training and
learning/teaching materials.
6.4 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
6.4.1 POPULATION
The total population for the survey was 817 respondents. This population can be broken
down into four categories, namely teachers, parents/guardians, pupils, and “others”.
This composition translates into 16 teachers, 289 parents/guardians. 409 pupils and 103
“others”. The subjects were randomly selected and then interviewed.
6.4.2 PROCEDURE
Data were obtained through interactive interviews with the randomly selected subjects in
two districts, i.e. Chikwawa and Nsanje. A questionnaire was employed in the data
collection exercise. The questionnaire had both open ended and closed questions whose
objectives were to solicit the following:
i) general information about the respondents – sex, age, marital status, level of
education, etc.
90

ii)
proficiency in Chisena and other languages.
iii) views on the use of Chisena as a medium of instruction in standards 1­4.
iv) teachers’competence in using Chisena as amedium of instruction.subject for
study
v) availability of learning/teaching materials written in Chisena.
The data collection procedure was as follows: reseachers read out questions to which the
subjects responded. The answers were then recorded on the questionnaire by the
researchers. One of the items on the questionnaire was a 25 item word list in which
respondents were asked to state whether they knew the Chisena words. This was
followed by a narrative which was read out by the researchers. The respondents’ task
was to re­tell the story in a summarised form. The two tests were aimed at determining
the respondents’ level of competence in Chisena.
It has to be mentioned that some data were collected through observation and literature
survey. The researchers were equipped with notepads in which they recorded any
relevant socioliguistic observations. These observations were done during both working
and off hours.
6.4.3 DATA COLLECTORS
The data collection exercise was done by a team comprising four principal reaseachers
and eight research of the research assistants.
6.4.4 DATA ANALYSIS
After coding, data was entered into a computer and analysed using a package known as
SPSS.
6.4.5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE SURVEY
Just like the Chilomwe survey, the current survey’s main problem was it was conducted
at a time when schools were closed for the long vacation. Since many teachers do not
91

live near schools where they teach, it was difficult to get teachers. The population,
therefore, does not feature as many teachers as the researchers would have liked.
The area­specific problem experienced in Nsanje and Chikwawa was the alarmingly high
temperatures. These high temperatures induced fatigue in the researchers who were not
used to hot climate conditions.
The third problem had to do with the politics of the area in which the survey was
conducted. Nsanje and Chikwawwa districts have all their parliamentary constitutients
(except one) taken by the ruling UDF party. The single seat in the hands of the
opposition belongs to the leader of the opposition, who also happens to be the President
of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP). In these two districts, there is political tension
between the two rival parties. In some cases this tension does lead to violence. The
research team was on more than one occasion mistakenly identified as an MCP group.
The mistaken identity was due to the fact that the lowly educated local people could not
tell the difference between the MCP flag and the GTZ/Malawi logo which was on all the
vehicles the research team used. To the local people, the flags resembled the old Malawi
Congress Party flag. As a result, it used to take the research team some time to educate
the local UDF faithfuls about the research teams’ non­invlovemement in MCP or political
issues as awhole. Such problems were met at Tengani and Marka.
Due to the problems mentioned above, it was impossible to reach the target of
interviewing 1000 respondents. Instead 817 subjects were interviewed.
6.4.6 SOME DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Areas of interest here are sex, age, and levels of education of the categories of the
respondents. Of the 817 respondents, 289(35.4%) were parents/guardians; 16 (2.0%)
were teachers; 409 (50.1%) were pupils, whilst 103 (12.6%) were in the ‘other’ category.
The distribution of the respondents per district was as follows: 328 respondents (40.1%)
for Chikwawa and 489 respondents (59.9%) for Nsanje. In terms of age, the age range
15­19 years constituted the larget group with 222 respondents (27.2%); followed by the
10­14 years age group with 190 respondents (23.3%). Table 80 captures the age
statistics.
92

Table 80:
Age Groups
Age Group Frequency %
0­9 23 2.8
10­14 190 23.3
15­19 222 27.2
20­24 91 11.1
25­29 65 8.0
30­34 57 7.0
35­39 53 6.5
40­44 32 3.9
45­49 25 3.1
50­54 11 1.3
55­59 11 1.3
60­64 8 1.0
65­69 8 1.0
70 and above 6 0.7
Undocomented 15 1.8
The distribution of the respondents according to sex is as follows: the majority were
males as indicated in Table 81.
Table 81:
Respondents’ Sex
Frequeency %
Male 499 61.1
Female 300 36.7
Undocumented 18 2.2
93

Of the 817 subjects, 624 (76.4%) claimed that they speak Chisena; with 192 subjects
(23.5%) saying that they were not speakers of the language; whilst 1 subject (0.1%) was
undocumented.
In terms of educational qualifications, the majority of the respondents 356 (43.6%)
idicated that they had education below PSLC. Table 82 presents an elaborate picture of
the respondents’ educational qualifications.
Table 82:
Qualifications
Frequency %
None 120 14.7
Below PSLC 517 63.3
PSLC 71 8.7
JC 82 10.0
MSCE 27 3.3
6.4.7 RESPONSES FROM VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS
6.4.8 PUPILS’ RESPONSES
In this section, we present responses made by 409 pupils (a figure representing 50.1% of
all the respondents interviewed during the survey). The pupils were drawn from two
districts, namely Nsanje 263 (64.3%) and Chikwawa 146 (35.7%).
The 10­14 years group 181 (44.3%) constituted the largest group; followed by the 15­9
years group 162 (39.6%). Refer to Table 83 for full details.
Table 83:
Pupils’ Ages
94

Age Group Frequency %
0­9 20 4.9
10­14 181 44.3
15­19 162 39.6
20­24 32 7.8
25­29 7 1.7
35­39 1 0.2
Undocumented 6 1.5
In terms of sex, the pupils can be categorised as follows: 284 (69.4%) were male whilst
114 (27.9%) were female. 11 (2.7%) of the respondents were undocumented.
As far as the pupils’ qualifications are concerned, 341 (83.4%) indicated that they had
education below the PSLC level. Table 84 shows the figures for pupils’ qualifications.
Table 84:
Pupils’ Qualifications
Qualification Frequency %
Below PSLC 341 83.4
PSLC 28 6.8
JC 32 7.8
MSCE 8 2.0
Of the 409 pupils, 281 (68.7%) indicated that they were able to speak Chisena whilst 128
(31.3%) said that they were not speakers of the language.
The pupils were then asked to state where the best variety of Chisena is spoken. Form
the figure shown in Table 85, it is clear that Nsanje district offers the best Chisena. It
was said by the respondents that Chisena becomes purer as one moves from Chikwawa
95

down to Nsanje, close to the Mozambique border. It is for this reason, that places within
Nsanje (which are close to the Mozambique border such as Maraka) are highly rated in
terms of housing the best variety of Chisena. Whilst some respondents simply
generalised that Nsanje district has the best Chisena, other respondents mentioned
specific areas within Nsanje e.g Tengani and Marka.
Table 85:
Where Best Chisena is Spoken
Place Frequency %
Tengani 27 6.6
Marka 97 23.7
Nyamula 2 0.5
Ngabu 8 2.0
Nsanje 144 35.2
Mbenje 3 0.7
Chikwawa 6 1.5
Mozambique 1 0.2
A related question required the pupils to identify the variety of Chisena which would be
the most appropriate for use in schools. The vast majority of the respondents 323
(79.4%) did not provide any answer, an indication that they do not know the variety in
question. Those who supplied responses to the question point to Nsanje (or certain areas
of Nsanje) as providing the variety of Chisena which is the most appropriate for use in
schools. Table 86 summarises the responses to this question. It is important to note that
the varieties are known by the places where they are spoken e.g. Tengani variety, Sorgin
variety, Marka variety etc except the case of Phodzo and Chimang’anja.
It appears there are no distinct names for Chisena dialects. This is in contrast to
Chilomwe which has dialects with names in their own right e.g. Chikokhola,
Chimarevoni, Chimalokotela, Chimihaveni etc.
Table 86:
Variety of Chisena Most Appropriate for Schools
Name of Variety Frequency %
96

Tengani 11 2.7
Nsanje 35 8.6
Phodzo 1 0.2
Mbenje 2 0.5
Sorgin 1 0.2
Marka 15 3.7
Chikwawa 15 3.7
Chikwawa 2 0.5
Nyachikhadza 1 0.2
Don’t know 26 79.7
Pupils were also asked whether or not they would like to be taught in Chisena. In their
answers, 248 (60.6%) of the pupils gave a YES answer whilst 154 (37.7%) of the pupils
rejected Chisena as a medium of instruction. 1.3% of the respondents were undecided.
The positive response given to Chisena as a medium of instruction is similar to that
which pupils in the Chilomwe speaking areas gave to the Chilomwe question (refer to
Table 87 for a summary).
Table 87:
To Be Taught In Chilomwe
Frequency %
Yes 248 60.6
No 154 37.7
Undecided 8 1.3
97

Closely connected to the issue of being in Chisena are two crucial questions namely, (a)
do you find embarrassing to speak Chisena? And (b) do you find it embarraassing to
identify yourself as a Sena? A peoples’ attitudes towards their language is very crucial to
their choice of language(s) for use in schools. A small minority of pupils interviewed 28
(6.8%) indicated that they find it embarrassing to speak Chisena; with 258 respondents
(63.1%) finding it not embarrassing to speak Chisena; and 123 (30.1%) gave no response
because they were not speakers of the language. On the question of whether they find it
embarrassing to identify themselves as Senas, another small minority 15 (3.7%) gave a
YES answer. A significant majority 317 (77.5%) indicated that it was not embarrassing
at all for them to identify themselves as Senas. This positive attitude has contributed to
the pupils’ acceptance of Chisena as a medium of instruction. The pupil’s responses
show that they find local languages as better media of instruction than English. Asked
whether or not they have problems with studying in English, the majority 234 (57.5%)
gave a YES answer; with 168 (41.3%) giving a NO answer (see Table 88). Turning to
Chichewa, a small minority 46 (11.3%) stated that they had no problems with studying in
Chichewa. See Table 89 for the summary. This is strong support for the use of local
languages as a media of instruction.
Table 88:
Problems With Studying In English
Frequency %
Yes 234 57.2
No 168 41.1
Undecided 8 1.7
Table 89:
Problems with Studying in Chichewa
Frequency %
Yes 47 11.5
No 357 87.3
Undecided 5 1.2
6.4.8.1 SUMMARY OF PUPILS’ RESPONSES
98

The majority of the pupils have clearly shown that they are in favour of the use of
Chisena as a medium of instruction. They also indicate in a majority sense that they have
no problems with the use of Chichewa as a medium of instruction. They, however, in
their majority indicate that they have problems with studyimng English. The percentage
of pupils who find it embarrassing to either speak Chisena or identify themselves as
Senas is very small.
6.4.9 PARENTS’/GUARDIANS’ RESPONSES
Of the 289 parents/guardians, the majority 161 (55.7%) came from Nsanje and the 128
remainder (44.3%) came from Chikwawa
Table 90:
Age Ranges for Parents/Guardians
Age range No of Respondents Percentage
0­9 1 0.3
15­19 11 3.8
20­24 33 11.4
25­29 42 14.5
30­34 52 18.0
35­39 45 15.6
40­44 31 10.7
45­49 25 8.7
50­54
11 3.8
55­59 10 3.5
99

60­64 8 2.8
65­6 8 2.8
70 and above 12 4.2
6.5.2.1 SEX
Out of the 289 interviewees, 147 (50.9%) were male whilst 138 (47.8%) were female. 4
interviewees (1.4%) were undocumented.
6.5.2.1 QUALIFICATIONS
The educational background of the parents/guardians is summarised in Table 91
Table 91: Parents’/Guardians’ Qualifications
Level of Education No of Respondennts Percentage
No formal education 97 33.6
Below PSLC 131 45.6
PSLC 31 10.7
JC 20 6.9
MSCE 7 2.4
Diploma and above 3 1.0
There were 245 respondents (representing 84.8%) who indicated that they were Chisena
speakers and 44 respondents (15.2%) who stated that they were not speakers of the
language.
Out of the 289 respondents who were interviewed, 188 (65.1%) said that they were able
to speak other languages; with 130 (45.0%) of this group being competent speakers of
Chichewa. These statistics show that bilingualism or in some cases multilingualism is the
pattern of life in Chisena speaking districts of Nsanje and Chikwawa, with a clear
indication that Chichewa feature strongly as a national lingua franca. The strong force of
Chichewa as a lingua franca has also been noticed in Chitumbuka, Chiyao and Chilomwe
speaking areas of Malawi.
100

6.5.2.3 VARIETIES
Asked bout where they thought the best Chisena is spoken, the respondents gave a
number of places, the majority of them located in Nsanje district such as Ndamera,
Bangula, Chididi, Sorgin, Mbenje, Tengani and Marka. This is an indication that Nsanje
district rather than Chikwawa is regarded as the best Chisena. See Table 92 for a
summary of the responses.
Table 92:
Where Best Chisena Is Spoken
Place Frequency %
Tengani 21 7.3
Marka 50 17.3
Ngabu 7 2.4
Nsanje 148 51.2
Mbenje 6 2.1
Tulusidwa 1 0.3
Chikwawa 2 0.7
Sorgin 6 2.1
Chididi 11 3.8
Bangula 7 2.4
Ndamera 6 2.1
Undecided 24 8.3
On the question whether the respondents find it embarrassing to speak Chisena, a small
minority 11 (3.8%) said YES whilst a big majority 236 (81.7%) said NO. 42 respondents
(14.5%) were undecided since they were not speakers of the language.
A related question required respondents to indicate whether or not they felt embarrassed
to identify themselves as Senas. Only 4 respondents (1.4%) siad they felt embarrassed to
identify themselves as Senas whilst a significant majority 252 (87.2%) indicated that it
was not an embarrassment for them to identify themselves as Senas. 33 (11.4%) of the
respondents did not answer the question. In general, one can say that the majority of the
respondents have a positive attitude towards their mother tongue and ethnic group.
101

In response to a question on whether parents/guardians would like their children/wards to
be taught in Chisena, a big majority 228 (78.9%) accepted Chisena; with 59 (20.4%)
rejecting Chisena as a medium of instruction. 2 respondents (0.7%) were not decided.
A related question wanted to know whether the parents/guardians would like pupils to be
taught in Chichewa. The majority of the respondents 270 (93.4%) gave a positive
response to the qustion whilst 15 (5.2%) rejected Chichewa and 4 respondents (1.4%)
were not sure of their stand, hence they gave no response.
6.5.2.4 SUMMARY OF PARENTS’/GUARDIANS’ RESPONSES
The majority of the parents/guardians (78.9%) have welcomed the proposed use of
Chisena as a medium of instruction. The same parents/guardians (93.4%) indicate that
they also accept Chichewa as a medium of instruction. In conclusion, it can be said
whilst the majority of the parents/duardians have a positive attitude towards their
language and ethnic group, they also recognise Chichewa as an important national franca.
6.5.3 TEACHERS’ RESPONSES
This section presents responses made by primary school teachers located in the Chisena
speaking areas of Chikwawa and Nsanje. The responses throw light on, inter alia, the
possible number of teachers who are native speakers of Chisena, and also give an
indication of a number of teachers who teach in the Chisena speaking areas but are
themselves not Chisena speaking. In addition, the responses reveal the attitude of the
teachers whose mother tongue is Chisena. Specifically, the responses are supposed to
reflect the teachers’ attitude towards Chisena as well as towards their identity as Senas.
More crucially, it was vital to discover whether or not they were ready to teach in
Chisena. Furthermore, it was pertinent to find out from the responses whether or not they
accept the introduction of mother tongue instruction. Some of the questions were similar
to those asked in the other sections of the questionnaire. These pertained to the
respondents’ knowledge of other varieties of Chisena and where these are spoken.
Of all the teachers interviewed, 93.8% indicated that they spoke Chisena and only 6.3%
indicated that they did not. Asked whether they spoke other languages, 81.3% said they
did and 18.3% said they did not. The languages named were Chichewa 12.5%, English
6.3% and combinations of languages Chichewa and English (43.8%), Tumbuka,
Chichewa and English 6.3%, and Shona, Chichewa and English another 6.3%. A further
question asked the teachers whether they knew any varieties of Chisena, and 6.3%
102

mentioned the Nsanje variety, another 6.3% mentioned Nyungwe. An overwhelming
87.5% did not know any variety. A corollary asked the respondents to name where the
best Chisena is spoken and the responses are recorded in Table 93.
Table 93:
Where Best Chisena is Spoken
Place Frequency %
Marka 1 6.3
Nsanje 7 43.8
Mbenje 2 12.5
Chikwawa 1 6.3
Ndamera 5 31.3
A further question sought to find out whether or not the teachers found it embarrassing to
speak Chisena. An overwhelming 87.5% said they did not, 6.3% said they did, and
another 6.3% said they did not know. A corollary question asked the teachers whether or
not they were embarrassed to be identified as Sena. A staggering 93.7% said they were
not, 6.3% said they were.
A set of questions which had direct relevance to the aims and specific goals of the survey
were posed. The first question asked the teachers whether they accept Chisena in
schools. 87.5% said they would and 12.5% were undecided. A corollary question asked
the teachers whether they would accept Chisena as a medium of instruction, 75% said
they would, 12.5% said they would not and another 12.5% were undecided. A further
question asked whether they could teach Chisena as a subject, 81.3% said they could,
6.3% said they could not, 12.5% were undecided.
Another question sought to elicit information regarding the languages the teachers were
trained to teach. 12.5% said Chichewa and 62.5% said Chichewa and English. The
remainder were not trained teachers. These untrained teachers were recruited under the
Free Primary Education Programme. Responding to the question on what teaching and
103

learning materials exist in Chisena, 81.2% of the respondents said none exists whilst
18.2% claimed that the materials exist. The Chisena Bible was the only example cited
The respondents were also asked to name the variety which they deemed the most
appropriate for teaching purposes. The Chikwawa variety (43.8%) was considered the
most appropriate, followed by the Nsanje variety (31.8%) and Marka variety 12.5%.
Another 12.5% were undecided.
6.5.3.1 DISCUSSION
It should be pointed out from the outset like it was in the Chilomwe survey that the
number of respondents in this section is comparatively smaller than that of other
categories of respondents. The reason for this is simple. As mentioned earlier on, the
survey was undertaken during the school holidays and although a number of schools were
visited it was not possible to interview a greater and perhaps more representative number.
The findings, however, do not deviate in any significant ways from those of the earlier
surveys.
The initial observation to be made here is that an ovewhelming majority of teachers
(93.8%) speak Chisena which is contrary to what has been observed in the Chilomwe
survey. But more importantly, the teachers’ also speak Chichewa and English. This
reflects not only their education and professional training but also the bilingual nature of
the society they live in. The implication for this is that the importance of Chichewa and
of course, English should not be undermined by the introduction of mother tongue
instruction. After all there is already a cadre of teachers trained in these languages.
Another important factor the responses reveal is the positive attitude teachers have
towards Chisena. 87.5% of them indicated that they were not embarrassed to speak
Chisena. This is a crucial finding because if a mother tongue has to be introduced as a
medium of instruction or a subject, it is imperative that the potential providers of the
service have a positive attitude towards the language. Furthermore, it has been observed
that 87.5% of the teachers would at least in principle, accept the introduction of Chisena
in schools. Success of the mother tongue instruction would partly depend on the
acceptance of such a policy by the teachers themselves. The acceptance of Chisena is
strengthened further by the 75% of the teachers who indicated a willingness to accept it
as amedium of instruction.
Finally, it is clear from the responses above that since the teachers were trained in Eglish
and Chichewa, if the mother tongue education policy is to succeed, then the teaching and
learning materials should be prepared in tandem with the training of teachers.
104

6.5.4 “OTHER” RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSES
In addition to interviewing pupils, teachers, parents/guardians, a fourth category of
respondents was included. This group included respondents who did not fit in any of the
categories named earlier. It was considered important to have an idea of the views and
opinions of those respondents who have just left the school system, those who did so
some time back and those who had never been part of it at all.
A total of 86 respondents were interviewed in the same areas as were teachers but are not
old enough to be treated as parents/guardians.
On being asked whether they spoke Chisena or not, 82.6% indicated that they did and
17.4 said they did not. There were other languages that the respondents claimed to speak.
41.9% said they spoke Chichewa, 4.7% mentioned English, 2.3% named Chisena, 25.6%
mentioned a combination of Chichewa and English, 1.2% said a combination of
Portuguese, Chichewa and English and 1.2% mentioned a combination of Chilomwe and
Chichewa, and the remainder of the respondents doubted their proficiency in certain
languages, hence they cited no language.
Asked whether or not they found it embarrassing to speak Chisena, 74.5% said they did
not and 10.5% said they were, 15.1% did not respond.
A corollary question wanted to know whether or not they were embarrrased to identify
themselves as Sena, 84.9% said they were not, 4.7% said they were, and 10.5% did not
respond.
Another question sought to find out whether they had difficulties studying in English,
25.6% said they did, 17.4% sadi they did not, 1.2% did not respond and 55.8% were
undecided. A corollary question was asked about Chichewa, 9.3% said they had
difficulties, 32.6% said they did not, and 58.2% did not respond to the question.
Respondents were also asked whether they would have like to have been taught in
Chisena, 33.7% said they would, 8.1% said they would not, while 58.1% were undecided.
6.5.4.1 DISCUSSION
Although the respondents in this category had left the school system or had never been
105

part of it in any direct way, it was deemed necessary to find out views on the issue. In
general, the respondnets did not find it embarrassing either to identify themselves as
Senas or to speak Chisena. The respondents also indicated their willingness to be taught
in Chisena as well as their acceptance of the pupils to be taught Chisena in the schools.
6.6 CONCLUSIONS
There are a number of conclusions which can be drawn from the data presented above:
(1) That the majority of the Senas have a positive attitude towards their ethnic
group and their language, which contradicts the pervasive myths that the senas
do not have pride in their language and culture;
(2) That the majority of the pupils (60.6%) in the Chisena speaking areas would
like to be taught in Chisena;
(3) That the majority of the parents/guardians (78.9%) support the idea of having
their wards taught in their mother tongue (Chisena);
(4) That the majority of the teachers (87.5%) would accept Chisena in the
schools;
(5) That Chichewa has permeated every fabric of the Sena society thereby making
Sena societies bilingual/multilingual.
6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (MOE)
(i)
The results of the survey clearly show that pupils, teachers and
parents/guardians are in favour of using Chisena in the schools. The MOE
should therefore proceed with the mother tongue instruction policy.
(ii)
The MOE should develop teacher training programmes to cater for the mother
tongue instruction policy given that the current programmes only cater for two
languages of instruction, namely English and Chichewa.
(iii)
There is also an urgent need for the MIE and its professional partners to
develop teaching and learning materials in Chisena since these are nonexistent.
The required books include primers, teachers’ guides, elementary
106

grammars and dictionaries.
(iv)
The Nsanje dialect of Chisena should be adopted for use in schools.
(v)
The role of Chichewa as a national lingua franca should be recognised and
maintained.
(vi)
In discussing matters of language policy in education, there should be
meaningful co­operation and information flow among the various partners in
the education sector e.g. MOE, MIE, the University of Malawi and donors.
Such co­operation would avoid wasting resources as well as duplication of
efforts.
7 FINAL REMARKS
In all the four languages surveyed (i.e. Chiyao, Chitumbuka, Chilomwe and Chisena),
there is a general acceptance of the use of these languages as a media of instruction in
standards 1 – 4. The important influence of Chichewa and its acceptance as a “Lingua
Franca” is also clearly noted. There is also an awareness of the problems that for the
implementation of the mother tongue instruction policy will raise. We also note that for
the implemenation process to suceed, there is need for collaboration among the various
educational bodies such as the Ministry of Education itself, the University of Malawi
(especially the Centre for Language Studies), the Malawi Institude of Education,
publishers, and others.
The surveys’ findings reported here were also presented and debated at a national
symposium whose objective was to review the language­in­education policy in Malawi.
The symposium, held in March 1999 in Mangochi, attracted a wide range of stakeholders.
The symposium, after being furnished with the relevant data from the four surveys, did
propose a new language policy for Malawi’s education. At the core of this policy is
mother tongue instruction policy for the first four years of primary education.
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADEA Newsletter (1996) Volume 8 No. 4 Special Issue on the Role of Africa Languages
in Education and Sustainable Development.
Bamgbose, A. (1991) Language and The Nation: The Language Question in Sub­
107

Saharan Africa (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).
Boeder, R.B (1984) Silent Majority: A History of the Lomwe in Malawi (Pretoria:
African Institute of South Africa.
Chauma, A et al (1997) “Problems and Prospects for the Introduction of Vernacular
Languages in Primary Education: The Malawi Experience”. Paper presented at LICCA
Conference, Tanzania.
Chumbow, B.S. (1996) “Language Planning in Africa: Issues of Policy Formulation and
The Planning Model”. Paper presented at an International Seminar on Language in
Education in Africa, Cape Town, South Africa, July 15­19, 1996.
Elugbe, B (1996) “The Six­Year Primary School Project in Nigeria: Conclusions and
Problems”. Paper presented at an International Seminar on Language in Education in
Africa, Cape Town, South Africa, and July 15­19, 1996.
Kamwendo, G.H. (1997) “Language Policy in Malawi”. Zimbabwe Journal of
Educational Research Volume 9 No.2 pp 203­215.
Kayambazinthu, E (1989/90) “Patterns of Language Use in Malawi: Sociolinguistic
Investigation in the Domasi and Malindi Areas of Southern Malawi”. Journal of
Contemporary African Studies Volumes 8/9 Numbers 1 and 2 pp 109­131.
Matiki, A (1996/97) “Language Shift and Maintenance: Social Determinants of
Linguistic Change Among the Lomwe People”. Journal of Humanities Numbers 10 and
11 pp 1­25.
Owino, F. (1996) “Practical Difficulties of Instruction In A Mother Tongue Medium:
The Case of Dholuo in Nyanza, Kenya”. Paper Presented at an International Seminar on
Language in Education in Africa, Cape Town, South Africa, July 15­19, 1996.
Prah, K. (1995a) African Languages for the Mass Education of Africans (Bonn: DSE).
Prah, K. (1995a) Mother Tongue For Scientific and Technological Development In
Africa (Bonn: DSE).
108

109