Citation: Ahmed, I. (2024). Hausa’s Ascent in Public Domains and the Fate of Kataf Cluster Languages. Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture, 3(1), 1-14. www.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2024.v03i01.001.
Hausa’s Ascent in Public Domains and the Fate of Kataf Cluster Languages
By
Ibrahim Ahmed (PhD)
Department of Nigerian
Languages and Linguistics
Kaduna State University,
Kaduna
Telephone: 08027942218 (Calls
& WhatsApp)
Email: ibrahimahmedbg@gmail.com
Abstract
This study investigated
language use in public domains among communities speaking Kataf cluster
languages, focusing on the emerging trend of increased use of Hausa and the
implications. Guided by theories on language endangerment and multilingualism, the
quantitative research design was adopted to investigate the phenomenon. A sub-section
of a structured questionnaire (complemented by open-ended interviews) was used as
instrument(s) to generate the required data. The native speakers of the cluster’s
member languages were the research population. In keeping with the scientific
research procedure, purposive random sampling was used as the technique to
select five hundred persons as the research informants, as it was not possible
to reach all the persons that constituted the research population. The sample
comprised fifty persons from each of the ten ethnolinguistic groups covered by
the research (i.e. 50 persons x 10 groups = 500 informants). The desire to
select more enlightened persons who could read in-between the lines, i.e. persons
who knew the way language use practices should ideally be and understood how
such practices appeared among the focused communities, was the rationale for
employing the chosen sampling technique. Thus, the sample comprised educated
males and females between the ages of 18 and 45 years, mostly civil servants
(teachers, administrators, etc.) that possessed the Nigeria Certificate in
Education (NCE) or equivalents as minimum educational qualification.
Descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and percentage distributions were
employed as the mode of data analysis. The data analyzed in tables (1) to (5) not
only revealed a gradual decline in the use of Kataf cluster languages in public
settings in favour of Hausa but also provided strong evidence for the
endangerment of the affected languages, highlighting potential consequences for
cultural identity, community cohesion, and wider linguistic diversity.
1.1 Introduction
In the face of the growing
dominance of Hausa in Southern Kaduna, one of the major political constituents
of Kaduna State in the northwestern sub-region of Nigeria and home to about
sixty ethnolinguistic groups, the fate of Kataf cluster languages is uncertain.
Against this backdrop, this research investigated the language usage landscape and
trend among communities to which the member languages of Kataf cluster are
native tongues, examining Hausa’s ascent in public domains and the implications.
For established linguistic
reasons, the languages that are native to the ethnolinguistic groups that
constitute Southern Kaduna have been sub-categorized into four (4) distinct
language clusters, one of which is the Kataf cluster languages. The cluster comprises
ten phyla-genetically related languages belonging to the Plateau 2 sub-branch
of the Benue-Congo sub-family of the larger Niger-Congo phylum of African
languages. The languages are Tyap, Jju, Gworok, Sholio, Takad, Tyacherak,
Fantsuan, Ninkyop, Bakulu, and Anghan all of which presently appear symptomatic
of language endangerment. The names of the languages have hausanized variants due
to age-long contact with Hausa. Hence, the alternates Tyap ~ Kataf, Jju ~ Kaje,
Gworok ~ Kagoro, Sholio ~ Marwa, Takad ~ Attakar, Tyacherak ~ Kacaccere,
Fantsuan ~ Kafanchan, Ninkyop ~ Kaninkon, Bakulu ~ Ikulu, and Anghan ~ Kamantan
with the second elements in the pairs as the hausanized names (Greenberg, 1970,
pp. 8 & 9; James, 1997, p. 80; cf. Ahmed & Mijinyawa, 2020, 2021, &
2022).
Ahmed & Mijinyawa (2020,
2021, & 2022) discovered, among other revelations, that:
(a) The native speaker communities
of Kataf cluster languages were generally apathetic in speaking the languages, most
especially in public domains.
(b) Nearly all of the
languages in the cluster were undocumented and, therefore, hardly served any
official purposes.
(c) Most proficient or fluent speakers of the member languages did not
traverse all age-grades, an indication that the languages’ intergenerational
transmissions were being disrupted.
Beyond
the aforementioned facts, other sorts of unsubstantiated allegations have
continued to trend, and are trending, as the possible reasons for the
endangerment of not only the Kataf cluster languages but also the generality of
Southern Kaduna languages. Irrespective of the amount of these allegations, the
shift to or ascent of Hausa in the public domain appeared to be, and
remains, the most pronounced. In the context of the present research and,
indeed, in the language endangerment (and vitality) enterprise, places outside
of the home (or private) domain where language is
the life wire for communication are the public domains, for example, chiefs’
palaces, places of meetings/worships, event/ceremony centres, schools/offices/markets/hospitals/motor
parks, etc. The trending allegation or speculation of the shift to Hausa by the
speaker communities of Kataf cluster languages is, thus, the motivation behind
the conduct of the research to which this paper is an outgrowth.
1.2 Research Objective
This research was set out to
ascertain the alleged shift to Hausa in the public domains among native
speakers of Kataf cluster languages and the implications.
1.3 Research Question
Consistent with the above
objective, this research was set out to address the question ‘Do native
speakers of Kataf cluster languages shift to Hausa in the public domains, and what
are the implications?’
2.0 Literature
Review and Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
2.1 Language Shift
Language shift as a linguistic phenomenon arises
out of language contact, which in turn arises from multilingualism.
Multilingualism provides an environment for language contact, thus
referring to the presence and use of many languages in a given community, or
the linguistic behaviour of the members of a speech community using two, three,
or more languages, depending on the situation and function. Such a linguistic
scenario is societal multilingualism. Migration, imperialism, federation,
and border (i.e. boundary) sharing are some of the principal causes of
multilingualism (Fasold, 1984; Kachru, 1986; Simwinga, 2009; Farisiyah &
Zamzani, 2018). Social proximity of a speech community to another group
speaking another language, military occupation, a superimposed religious
medium, and institutional support for a foreign language as well as political
affiliation, immigration, and economic activities are some of the factors
responsible for language contact (Loveday, 1996 in Simwinga, 2009, p. 2). One of
the observable outcomes of language contact situations in Africa is the fact that
smaller or minority languages are being swallowed by bigger (i.e. major) or
official languages through language shift (Simwinga, 2009). This seems to be
the unfortunate situation of Kataf cluster languages as there are glaring
indications that a bigger language, with which they have been in contact for ages,
is gradually consuming them, as this paper ascertains.
Language shift is, by
definition, the extended use of a new language that results in the replacement
of a former primary language with a new primary language. In other words, it is
a phenomenon whereby members of a speech community mortgage their ancestral
language in favour of that of an adjacent speech community. In other words, it
is a situation where patterns of language use by members of a given speech
community shift from the use of their native language to using a supposedly new
language (Fasold, 1984; Brenzinger, 1992; Simwinga, 2009). Language shift may
be partial
or complete.
It is partial when, for example, the primary (i.e. native) language continues
to be hegemonic, especially in the private (or home) domain. It is however
complete, as Simwinga (2009, p. 2) pointed out, when native speakers of a given
language shift over various generations to another language in all functional
domains, resulting in the death of the native (i.e. the abandoned) language. It
means, therefore, that language death is the ultimate
consequence of language shift. Grimes (2013) cited in Sarvi (2016, p. 41)
stated that (any or all of) the under-listed factors could cause language shift:
(a) Pushing of
children to learn prestige language by parents
(b) Natural
or man-made disaster i.e. sudden shift e.g. because of war, flood, earthquake
(c) Migration
outside of traditional territory i.e. planned shift
(d) Use of a
second language in school
(e) National
language policy
(f) Urbanization,
industrialization, etc.
(g) Inferiority
complex (Nawaz, Umer, Anjum, & Ramzan, 2012)
(h) Speakers’
attitude [i.e. apathy, inferiority complex, etc.] towards their native tongue
(Nawaz et al., 2012)
Language
death occurs in unstable bilingual or multilingual speech communities as a
result of language shift from regressive minority language [e.g. the Kataf
cluster languages in the present case] to dominant majority language [e.g.
Hausa in the present case] (Nawaz et al., 2012). Crystal (2000) in (Nawaz et
al., 2012) argues that a language is said to be dead when no one speaks it any
more, though it may continue to exist in recorded forms i.e. traditionally in
writing and more recently in sound or video archive, however, unless it has
fluent speakers it would not be seen as a living language.
2.2 Language Endangerment
Language endangerment has been in existence since
antiquity (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2015, p. 1). As a sociolinguistic
phenomenon, it entails a situation where native speakers of a language cease to
use it, use it in fewer domains, and use fewer of its registers and speaking
styles, or stop passing it on to the next generation (Usman, 2013, p. 52). When
a language can no longer survive or strive in society due to alterations in
socio-economic, political, technological, cultural, and religious ecologies, the
scenario is language endangerment and the affected language is an endangered
language (Krauss, 1992).
There are approximately 6000
languages in the world, of which 10% are ranked safe, another 10% are ranked
vulnerable, 11% are ranked definitively endangered, 57% are ranked severely
endangered, 9% are ranked critically endangered, and 4% are ranked extinct or
dead. Of the estimated 6000 world languages, 2132 are said to be on the African
continent. 15.8% of the languages of Africa have been rated as relatively safe
(from endangerment), 60.4% as moderately endangered, 14.4% as severely
endangered, and 9.4% as extinct or nearly extinct (UNESCO, 2003). In the case
of Nigeria, based on Crozier & Blench’s (1992) benchmark that places a
language having up to 5000 [native] speakers as a safe language, Ugwoke (1999)
cited in Sarvi (2016, pp. 26 – 28) assessed languages in some Nigerian states
and discovered that no fewer than 152 languages were facing the danger of going
extinct. Such a finding confirms and affirms that Nigeria is a hotspot of
language endangerment and endangered languages on the global and Africa’s maps.
Sarvi (2016, pp. 27 & 28), drawing from insights in Ugwoke (1999), Blench
(2011), and Haruna (2014), listed Mada, Nungu/Rindre, Duya, Gbagyi, Numana,
Nunku, Gbantu, Numbu, Nyankpa, Toro, and Yeskwa as (some of the) endangered
languages to be found in Kaduna State, as per Ugwoke’s safe status benchmark for
languages (cf. Ahmed & Mijinyawa, 2020, 2021, & 2022).
Language endangerment occurs because
of external
and internal
forces. The external forces can be in the form of military, economic,
religious, cultural, or educational subjugation. On the other hand, the
internal forces often originate from the external ones. Consequently, both
forces tend to halt the intergenerational transmission of linguistic and
cultural traditions (UNESCO, 2003). Grimes (2013) cited in Sarvi (2016, p. 4)
accused language shift as a principal cause of language endangerment. Bello
(2013, pp. 35 – 48) perceived language endangerment as a phenomenon that any (or
all) of the under-listed factors can trigger and propel:
(a) Geographic
and geo-demographic factors
(b) Social
factors
(c) Size of
language speakers
(d) Amount
and quality of documentation [of language(s)]
(e) Domains
of language use
(f) Historical
factors
(g) Political
factors
(h) Attitude
of speakers [or psychological factors (Nawaz et al., 2012)]
(i) Sociolinguistic
factors
(j) Socio-economic
factors
(k) Intergenerational
language transmission
(l) Globalization/modernization/urbanization
The present
paper is guided by the following theoretical assumptions:
(a) Languages
whose native speakers use them in an increasingly reduced number of
communicative domains automatically become endangered (UNESCO, 2003).
(b) In
language contact situations where international language and local one are both
accorded official status, a local language would tend to shift to, or be
replaced by, the official local language rather than by the international
language (Bhola, 1990; Van Dyken, 1990; Brenzinger et al., 1991; Brenzinger,
2001; Simwinga, 2009).
It should be reiterated at
this point that, the ‘Last-Bus-Stop’ for language endangerment is language
death, extinction, or disappearance, which in turn is the ultimate consequence
of long-term accumulation and effects of the multifaceted factors – language
shift inclusive – that trigger and propel language endangerment.
3.0 Research Methodology
A quantitative research
design was employed to investigate the language shift phenomenon. Communities
speaking Kataf cluster languages were the population for this research. The exact
or estimated population size could not be sourced by the research from any
authoritative or credible database, e.g. the Nigerian National Population
Commission’s (NPC) database. However, the numerical size of the native speakers
of all of the languages might run into hundreds of thousands. In keeping with the
scientific research procedure, purposive random sampling was used as the
technique to select five hundred persons as the research sample, as it was not
possible to reach all the persons that constituted the research population. The
sample comprised fifty persons from each of the ten ethnolinguistic groups
covered by the research (i.e. 50 persons x 10 groups = 500 informants). The
desire to select more enlightened persons who could read in-between the lines,
i.e. persons who knew the way language use practices should ideally be and
understood how such practices appeared among the focused communities at the
time of conducting this research, was the rationale for employing the chosen
sampling technique. Thus, the sample comprised educated males and females
between the ages of 18 and 45 years, mostly civil servants (teachers,
administrators, etc.) that possessed the Nigeria Certificate in Education (NCE)
or equivalents as minimum educational qualification. A sub-section of a
structured questionnaire (complemented by open-ended interviews) was used as
instrument(s) to generate the required data. The relevant sub-component of the
questionnaire comprised five questions that sought respondents’ perception of
the language used most among the focused communities in public domains, i.e. chiefs’
palaces, meetings, places of worship, schools/offices/markets/motor parks, and
ceremonies. Descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and percentage
distributions were employed as the mode of data analysis. However, due to informants’
apathy in handling and responding to questionnaires, the fifty copies (of a questionnaire)
distributed to each of the ten ethnolinguistic groups could not (in all cases) be
retrieved back intact, hence the differential in the totals of responses
frequencies, as would be observed in the section that immediately follows (cf.
Ahmed & Mijinyawa, 2020, 2021, & 2022).
4.0 Data Analysis and Results
4.1 Data
Analysis
The
research primary data i.e. informants’ perceptions of the language used most in
public sub-domains by members of their community are presented and analyzed in
tables (1) to (5) below:
Table (1):
Analysis
of responses to the question ‘Which language do your community members use most
at the Chief’s Palace?’
|
Ethno-linguistic
Community |
Response |
||
|
Language |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
1. Agworok |
Gworok |
25 |
78.1 |
|
Hausa |
5 |
15.6 |
|
|
English |
2 |
6.3 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
32 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Anghan |
Anghan |
30 |
61.2 |
|
Hausa |
15 |
30.6 |
|
|
English |
4 |
8.2 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Asholio |
Sholio |
19 |
76 |
|
Hausa |
6 |
24 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
25 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Attakad |
Takad |
33 |
75 |
|
Hausa |
10 |
22.7 |
|
|
English |
1 |
2.3 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
44 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Atyap |
Tyap |
21 |
70 |
|
Hausa |
8 |
26.7 |
|
|
English |
1 |
3.3 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
30 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Bajju |
Jju |
32 |
74.4 |
|
Hausa |
10 |
23.3 |
|
|
English |
1 |
2.3 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
43 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Bakulu |
Bakulu |
20 |
83.3 |
|
Hausa |
4 |
16.7 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
24 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Fantsuan |
Fantsuan |
14 |
70 |
|
Hausa |
5 |
25 |
|
|
English |
1 |
5 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Ninkyop
|
Ninkyop |
15 |
75 |
|
Hausa |
4 |
20 |
|
|
English |
1 |
5 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. Tyacherak |
Tyacherak |
35 |
71.4 |
|
Hausa |
14 |
28.6 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
Table (2): Analysis of responses to the question ‘Which language do your
community members use most at/in meetings?’
|
Ethno-linguistic
Community |
Response |
||
|
Language |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
1. Agworok |
Gworok |
28 |
87.5 |
|
Hausa |
4 |
12.5 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
32 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Anghan |
Anghan |
49 |
100 |
|
Hausa |
- |
- |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Asholio |
Sholio |
18 |
72 |
|
Hausa |
7 |
28 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
25 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Attakad |
Takad |
42 |
95.5 |
|
Hausa |
2 |
4.5 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
44 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Atyap |
Tyap |
24 |
80 |
|
Hausa |
3 |
10 |
|
|
English |
3 |
10 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
30 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Bajju |
Jju |
41 |
95.3 |
|
Hausa |
- |
- |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
2 |
4.7 |
|
|
Total |
43 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Bakulu |
Bakulu |
15 |
62.5 |
|
Hausa |
7 |
29.2 |
|
|
English |
2 |
8.3 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
24 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Fantsuan |
Fantsuan |
12 |
60 |
|
Hausa |
6 |
30 |
|
|
English |
2 |
10 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Ninkyop
|
Ninkyop |
14 |
70 |
|
Hausa |
4 |
20 |
|
|
English |
2 |
10 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. Tyacherak |
Tyacherak |
37 |
75.5 |
|
Hausa |
12 |
24.5 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
Table
(3): Analysis
of responses to the question ‘Which language do your community members use most
in schools/hospitals/offices/motor parks/markets?’
|
Ethno-linguistic Community |
Response |
||
|
Language |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
1.
Agworok |
Gworok |
11 |
34.4 |
|
Hausa |
12 |
37.5 |
|
|
English |
9 |
28.1 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
32 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Anghan |
Anghan |
4 |
8.2 |
|
Hausa |
43 |
87.8 |
|
|
English |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Asholio |
Sholio |
8 |
32 |
|
Hausa |
11 |
44 |
|
|
English |
6 |
24 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
25 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Attakad |
Takad |
16 |
36.4 |
|
Hausa |
13 |
29.5 |
|
|
English |
10 |
22.7 |
|
|
Others |
5 |
11.4 |
|
|
Total |
44 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Atyap |
Tyap |
3 |
10 |
|
Hausa |
13 |
43.33 |
|
|
English |
7 |
23.33 |
|
|
Others |
7 |
23.33 |
|
|
Total |
30 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
Bajju |
Jju |
27 |
62.8 |
|
Hausa |
13 |
30.2 |
|
|
English |
3 |
7 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
43 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
Bakulu |
Bakulu |
16 |
66.7 |
|
Hausa |
5 |
20.8 |
|
|
English |
2 |
8.3 |
|
|
Others |
1 |
4.2 |
|
|
Total |
24 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
Fantsuan |
Fantsuan |
7 |
35 |
|
Hausa |
5 |
25 |
|
|
English |
7 |
35 |
|
|
Others |
1 |
5 |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
Ninkyop
|
Ninkyop |
1 |
5 |
|
Hausa |
11 |
55 |
|
|
English |
8 |
40 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
Tyacherak |
Tyacherak |
35 |
71.4 |
|
Hausa |
11 |
22.4 |
|
|
English |
- |
- |
|
|
Others |
3 |
6.2 |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
Table (4): Analysis of responses to the question ‘Which language do your
community members use most at places of worship?’
|
Ethno-linguistic Community |
Response |
||
|
Language |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
1.
Agworok |
Gworok |
8 |
25 |
|
Hausa |
14 |
43.8 |
|
|
English |
10 |
31.2 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
32 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Anghan |
Anghan |
42 |
85.7 |
|
Hausa |
6 |
12.2 |
|
|
English |
1 |
2.1 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Asholio |
Sholio |
1 |
4 |
|
Hausa |
13 |
52 |
|
|
English |
11 |
44 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
25 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Attakad |
Takad |
12 |
27.3 |
|
Hausa |
20 |
45.5 |
|
|
English |
11 |
25 |
|
|
Others |
1 |
2.2 |
|
|
Total |
44 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Atyap |
Tyap |
3 |
10 |
|
Hausa |
17 |
56.7 |
|
|
English |
8 |
26.7 |
|
|
Others |
2 |
6.6 |
|
|
Total |
30 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
Bajju |
Jju |
16 |
37.2 |
|
Hausa |
18 |
41.8 |
|
|
English |
7 |
16.3 |
|
|
Others |
2 |
4.7 |
|
|
Total |
43 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
Bakulu |
Bakulu |
11 |
45.8 |
|
Hausa |
7 |
29.2 |
|
|
English |
5 |
20.8 |
|
|
Others |
1 |
4.2 |
|
|
Total |
24 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Fantsuan |
Fantsuan |
- |
- |
|
Hausa |
13 |
65 |
|
|
English |
4 |
20 |
|
|
Others |
3 |
15 |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
Ninkyop
|
Ninkyop |
- |
- |
|
Hausa |
10 |
50 |
|
|
English |
10 |
50 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
20 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
Tyacherak |
Tyacherak |
7 |
14.3 |
|
Hausa |
38 |
77.6 |
|
|
English |
4 |
8.1 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
49 |
100 |
|
Table
(5): Analysis
of responses to the question ‘Which language do your community members use most
at ceremonies?’
|
Ethno-linguistic Community |
Response |
||
|
Language |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
|
1.
Agworok |
Gworok |
18 |
56 |
|
Hausa |
12 |
38 |
|
|
English |
2 |
6 |
|
|
Others |
- |
- |
|
|
Total |
32 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Anghan |
Anghan |
44 |
89.8 |