Executive Summary - Centre for Language Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

questionnaires seemed not to have adequate information regarding the languagesituation in areas beyond their own village. As a result, more time was spent onthis aspect as researchers tried to probe so as to get the information required. Thiswas the case because generally in remote rural areas some people do not travelwidely and, therefore, may not be aware of what is happening in some parts oftheir own TAs. However, such information was verified during FGDs.1.6.7 Establishing languages/dialectsIn some cases isolating languages and dialects was also a challenge. This cameabout in several ways. First, some respondents claimed that their language hadsome dialects but when asked to elaborate, they could neither provide the namesof the dialects nor give examples of some linguistic attributes to substantiate theirclaims. Second, respondents insisted that what they were speaking was acompletely different language when in fact it was just a variety. This was the casewith Cinyanja, Cimang'anja and Chichewa as well as Cilomwe, Cikhokhola,Cithakhwani and Cimihavani just to mention a few. This was usually the casewith individual questionnaires but this problem was resolved during FGDs whereparticipants were in agreement that indeed the said languages were just dialects ofChichewa and Cilomwe, respectively.1.6.8 Getting the participants required for FGDsGetting participants required for FGDs was not easy. This was so because of theproliferation of NGOs and research organisations in most communities that giveshandouts of money, food, etc to people after paying them a visit. As a result,there is a wide-spread expectation that any group visiting an area is going todistribute some money, food, etc. Besides, this survey was conducted at a timewhen most communities were waiting for the registration exercise of thebeneficiaries of the Government's fertiliser subsidy programme. In this regard,some village headmen were hesitant to identify respondents for fear of beingaccused of favouritism. In fact, in some cases more than the required number of16
espondents turned up for the FGDs thinking that the research teams were there toidentify beneficiaries. This was a challenge because with more than 20participants it was not easy to coordinate and have everybody contribute in thediscussions.17
Page 4 and 5: Table of ContentsAcknowledgments ..
Page 6: APPENDIX 2 ........................
Page 9 and 10: CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.0. Prelimina
Page 11 and 12: (i)to guide the Ministry of Educati
Page 13 and 14: administering the questionnaires. T
Page 15: spent a lot of time searching for h
Page 19 and 20: 2.1.2 Languages of BlantyreResults
Page 21 and 22: Nayuchi, Mchingusa in TA Kawinga; a
Page 23 and 24: 2.1.11 Languages of PhalombeRespond
Page 25 and 26: CHAPTER 3RESULTS FOR CENTRAL REGION
Page 27 and 28: 3.1.5 Languages of MchinjiAccording
Page 29 and 30: CHAPTER 4PATTERNS OF LANGUAGE USE A
Page 31 and 32: wanted their language to be taught
Page 33 and 34: understand Ciyawo. Respondents also
Page 35 and 36: CHAPTER 5ATTITUDES AND LANGUAGE LOY
Page 37 and 38: CHAPTER 6LANGUAGE IN EDUCATION AND
Page 39 and 40: The findings of the survey show tha
Page 41 and 42: 16 Tsoka sasimba Malawi Govt Malawi
Page 43 and 44: 62 Kasamalidwe ka mwana wa masiye K
Page 45 and 46: AuthorPublication1 Bible not stated
Page 47 and 48: APPENDIX 2DISTRICT MAPS SHOWING DIS
Page 49 and 50: APPENDIX 4HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONAIRECEN
Page 51 and 52: 10. (a). Has your first language be
Page 53 and 54: 1. List down the languages that are
Page 55: ___________________________________

Executive Summary - Centre for Language Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?