Hausa’s Ascent in Public Domains and the Fate of Kataf Cluster Languages

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
	Hausa	2	4.1
	English	2	4.1
	Others	1	2.0
	Total	49	100
3. Asholio	Sholio	10	40
	Hausa	15	60
	English	-	-
	Others	-	-
	Total	25	100
4. Attakad	Takad	24	54.5
	Hausa	16	36.4
	English	4	9.1
	Others	-	-
	Total	44	100
5. Atyap	Tyap	12	40
	Hausa	12	40
	English	4	13.3
	Others	2	6.7
	Total	30	100
6. Bajju	Jju	34	79.1
	Hausa	5	11.6
	English	4	9.3
	Others	-	-
	Total	43	100
7. Bakulu	Bakulu	17	70.8
	Hausa	4	16.7
	English	3	12.5
	Others	-	-
	Total	24	100
8. Fantsuan	Fantsuan	7	35
	Hausa	7	35
	English	6	30
	Others	-	-
	Total	20	100
9. Ninkyop	Ninkyop	10	50
	Hausa	5	25
	English	5	25
	Others	-	-
	Total	20	100
10. Tyacherak	Tyacherak	28	57.1
	Hausa	21	42.9
	English	-	-
	Others	-	-
	Total	49	100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2 Results

Tables (1) to (5) above analyzed the research informants’ perceptions regarding the languages used most in the public domains in the informants’ respective communities. The analysis reveals the following results:

(a)   15.6%, 30%, 24%, 22.7%, 26.7%, 23.3%, 16.7%, 25%, 20%, and 28.6% of Agworok, Anghan, Asholio, Attakad, Atyap, Bajju, Bakulu, Fantsuan, Ninkyop, and Tyacherak informants respectively have attested to the gradual and unfortunate use of Hausa at chiefs’ palaces. This is an unwelcomed linguistic compromise, as chiefs’ palaces seem to be the only remaining sanctuaries, next to the families, that are supposed to be the custodians of the communities’ heritages, the languages inclusive (see Table 1 above).

(b)  12.5%, 28%, 4.5%, 10%, 29.2%, 30%, 20%, and 24.5% of Agworok, Asholio, Attakad, Atyap, Bakulu, Fantsuan, Ninkyop, and Tyacherak respondents respectively have agreed to the use of Hausa at/in meetings, which also indicated the gradual shift to Hausa from Kataf cluster languages in this aspect of public domains. There were, however, exceptions, as none of Anghan and Bajju respondents agreed that Hausa was being used in this public sub-domain by their community members (see table 2 above).

(c)   37.5%, 87.8%, 44%, 29.5%, 43.33%, 30.2%, 20.8%, 25%, 55%, and 22.4% of Agworok, Anghan, Asholio, Attakad, Atyap, Bajju, Bakulu, Fantsuan, Ninkyop, and Tyacherak informants respectively have attested to the use of Hausa at schools/hospitals/offices/motor parks/markets, a scenario that also highlighted and confirmed the shift to Hausa from Kataf cluster languages at that seemingly related public contexts. Schools, hospitals, offices, etc. are public places that are usually linguistically cosmopolitan; therefore, necessarily require a language known to all the attendees as a common means of communication. This explains the necessity of using Hausa most in/at such public settings, though gaining more favour in Agworok, Anghan, Asholio, Atyap, and Ninkyop communities (see Table 3 above).

(d)  43.8%, 12.2%, 52%, 45.5%, 56.7%, 41.8%, 29.2%, 65%, 50%, and 77.6% of Agworok, Anghan, Asholio, Attakad, Atyap, Bajju, Bakulu, Fantsuan, Ninkyop, and Tyacherak informants respectively have agreed that Hausa was being used at places of worship, which also attested to the shift to Hausa from Kataf cluster languages at that level of public domains. Kataf cluster communities are predominantly Christians and, therefore, patronize churches for religious practices. Churches in these communities conduct religious practices along two linguistic lines, i.e. Hausa and English. The result for language use at places of worship reveals and confirms that Hausa was much more a favoured language than English, i.e. the shift was more towards Hausa except in Anghan and Bakulu communities where the respective native tongues gained more favour as the languages of religious practices (see table 4 above).

(e)   38%, 4.1%, 60%, 36.4%, 40%, 11.6%, 16.7%, 35%, 25%, and 42.9% of Agworok, Anghan, Asholio, Attakad, Atyap, Bajju, Bakulu, Fantsuan, Ninkyop, and Tyacherak informants respectively confirmed the gradual shift from Kataf cluster languages to Hausa, having adjudged that Hausa was being used at ceremonies in their respective communities. Ceremonies, especially the traditional types e.g. marriages, festivals, burials etc., among Kataf cluster communities tend to be patronized more often by linguistically homogeneous persons who, ideally, need not use any language to communicate in such public contexts other than their native languages. The present research, however, has discovered otherwise as the research informants’ responses provide clues to understand that even in such linguistically homogenous public settings Hausa takes the stage as a means of communication, thereby threatening the linguistic identities of the affected communities (see table 5 above).

5.0 Conclusion

Thus far, this research/paper has set out to examine the language usage landscape and the trend across the communities to which Kataf cluster languages are native tongues to ascertain the alleged shift to Hausa in public domains and the consequences thereof. Besides revealing a decline in the communities’ use of their native tongues in public contexts in favour of Hausa, it is also deducible from the foregoing results that the language-shifting phenomenon is significant and consequential as well. It is significant in that it has proven further the increasing dominance of Hausa across the linguistic terrain of southern Kaduna State, thereby further strengthening Hausa’s hegemony both as a lingua franca and as a major language in Nigeria. It is consequential because of its long-term effects on the cultural-cum-linguistic identity, diversity, and cohesion of the affected speech communities, as the phenomenon presumes the eventual loss or extinction of these God-given heritages if allowed to flourish unchecked. As far as language vitality and endangerment enterprise is concerned, language shift represents major evidence of language endangerment that, if not halted, can in the long-term render the language(s) shifted from extinct.

On a final note, this research draws the attention of the Kataf cluster communities on their individual and collective beginning neglect, as observed in the course of the research, of their God-given heritages (i.e. their native languages) and gradual embrace of Hausa even in public domains that are near-private, which represents speakers’ negative attitude towards their native language. Thus, as a means of reversing the language-shifting trend, the research calls on the native speakers of the affected communities to see reason and develop positive attitudes towards their languages by ensuring that these languages are their primary means of communication not only in the private domain but also in the public domains. As noticed during the research process, public settings are usually comprised of persons with the same linguistic identity, making it grossly unnecessary and unjustifiable to engage an adjacent language as a means of communication. Concession may however be given to domains such as schools, offices, hospitals, markets, and motor parks that are usually attended by persons of different linguistic backgrounds, and would require a common language for effective communication to thrive.

References

Ahmed, I. & Mijinyawa, S. M. (2020) “Assessment of Language Endangerment in Southern Kaduna Ethno-linguistic Area: A Focus on Kataf Cluster Languages.” Unpublished Report. Kaduna, Nigeria: Department of Nigerian Languages and Linguistics, Kaduna State University

Ahmed, I. & Mijinyawa, S. M. (2021) “Disruption in Intergenerational Language Proficiency Transmission as a Common Attribute of the Kataf Cluster Languages.” In International Journal of Languages, Linguistics, and Literary Studies (JOLLS). Owerri, Nigeria: Department of French, Imo State University. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 10 – 12

Ahmed, I. & Mijinyawa, S. M. (2022) “A Unescorian Approach to Assessing the Degree of Endangerment of Kataf Cluster Languages.” In The Nasara Journal of Humanities. Keffi, Nigeria: Faculty of Arts, Nasarawa State University. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 40 – 47

Bello, M. (2013) “Assessing Language Vitality and Language Endangerment of Lətə (Larthe).” M.Phil. Thesis. Legon: University of Ghana

Bhola, H. S. (1990) “An Overview of Literacy in Sub-Sahara Africa: Images in the Making.” In African Studies Review. Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 5 – 20

Blench, R. M. (2011) An Atlas of Nigerian Languages (3^rd edition). Cambridge: United Kingdom

Brenzinger, M., Heine, B., & Summer, G. (1991) Language Death in Africa. No. 153, pp. 19 – 44

Brenzinger, M. (2001) “Language Endangerment through Marginalization, and Globalization.” In Sakayama, O. (ed.) Lectures on the Endangered Languages of the Pacific (Rim 2). Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University. Pp. 91 – 116

Crozier, D. & Blench, R. M. (1992) An Index of Nigerian Languages (2^nd edition). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics

Crystal, D. (2000) Language Death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Farisiyah, U. & Zamzani (2018) “Language Shift and Language Maintenance of Local Languages toward Indonesia.” In Advances in Social Science, Education, and Humanities Research. Vol. 165, pp. 231 – 235. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Atlantis Press

Fasold. R. (1984) The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Greenberg, J. H. (1970) The Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University

Grimes, B. F. (2013) “Global Language Vitality: Causes, Symptoms, and Cures for Endangered Languages. In Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (eds.) Ethnologue: Languages of the World (17^th edition, online version). Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com

Haruna, A. (2014) “Research and Developments in the Study of Endangered Languages in Nigeria: Status, Strategy, Documentation, and Preservation.” A Lead paper read at the 1^st International Conference on Endangered Languages, in Honor of M. K. M. Galadanci. Kano, Nigeria: Bayero University

James, I. (1997) Studies in the History, Politics, and Culture of Southern Kaduna Peoples Groups. Jos, Nigeria: LADMOS Press Limited

Kachru, B. (1986) The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon

Krauss, M. (1992) “The World’s Languages in Crisis.” In Hale, K. et al. (eds.) Endangered Languages. 68 (1), pp. 4 – 10

Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (eds.) (2015) Ethnologue: Languages of the World (18^th edition, online version). Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com

Loveday, L. (1996) Language Contact in Japan: A Sociolinguistic History. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Nawaz, S., Umer, A., Anjum, F., Razman, M. (2012) “Language Shift: An Analysis of Factors Involved in Language Shift.” In Global Journal of Human, Social Science, Linguistics, and Education, Vol. 12, Issue 10, Version 1.0, Online edition. USA: Global Journals Inc.

Sarvi, S. A. (2016) “An Assessment of the Level of Language Endangerment in Nigeria: A Study of Eggon Language of Nasarawa State.” PhD. Thesis. Zaria, Nigeria: Ahmadu Bello University

Simwinga, J. (2009) “Emerging Evidence for Language Shift: The Case of Nkoya in Kaoma, Western Zambia.” In Journal of Humanities, Vol. 9, pp. 1 – 26. Zambia: University of Zambia

Ugwoke, I. (1999) “Nigerian Languages in Danger of Disappearing.” In Emenanjo, E. N. & Patrick, B. (eds.) Language Endangerment and Language Empowerment in Nigeria: Theory and Reality, Vol. 1, pp. 14 – 31. Aba, Nigeria: National Institute for Nigerian Languages

UNESCO ‘United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages]’ (2003) Language Vitality and Endangerment. Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Program ‘Safeguarding of Endangered Languages’. Paris, France: UNESCO

Usman, B. (2013) Language Disappearance and Cultural Diversity in Biu Emirate. Abuja, Nigeria: KLADIMAS Communication Limited

Van Dyken (1990) “The Role of Language in Minority Groups for Literacy and Education in Africa.” In African Studies Review. Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 39 – 52 

Get the full PDF here: