SOCIOLOLINGUISTIC SURVEYS - Centre for Language Studies

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