Zimpapers Logo

Ignatius Mabasa Shelling the Nuts
I AM grateful and applaud the work that people like Clement Doke, George Fortune and others did to patiently study, create and develop the Shona language and its orthography. At the request of the government of Southern Rhodesia, Doke came to the country and “investigated the range of dialect diversity among the languages of the country and in 1931 made recommendations for Unified Shona.”

His recommendations formed the basis for Standard Shona, which we largely use today as the correct way to write and perhaps even speak Shona. Doke came up with “a unified orthography” but it glossed over unique and significant dialectal differences. According to Raphael Nhongo, Shona is a hybrid of what are now referred to as dialects that include Zezuru, Ndau, Korekore, Manyika and Karanga after the unification by Clement Doke. If Shona is a hybrid, it will never be fully faithful and representative of the dialects it was derived from.

A unified orthography was essential, because it was fit for the government of the day’s administrative purposes to have a cheap writing system that would cut and cater across the linguistic divide. It is still good today, because it is an example of how a language can unite people.

However, as I do more work with teachers, academics, writers and storytellers, I am beginning to notice that Shona as a language should not continue to be prescribed as a standard that is used to judge and dismiss the dialects from which it is derived. Such an approach is wrong and high-handed, especially in Shona language teaching and in the assessment of literature in Shona to be prescribed in schools. There are beautiful and very rich words and idioms, which the standard Shona will not accept because they are deep Ndau, Manyika, Korekore or Karanga.

When I taught in Manicaland, I really pitied the Manyika children who are confused and frustrated because standard Shona does not accept or recognise that they write as they speak. Wana wechikoro waitambura ngekuti amwe anhu anoti mwazvita but others say correct Shona says, “Vana vechikoro vaitambura nekuti vamwe vanhu vanoti mazvita.”

Since standard Shona is the examinable and officially accepted language, should we dismiss writers and learners that are capturing and expressing themselves in their dialects, especially when they follow all the grammatical rules? What is wrong about their Shona besides the dialectal differences? Are we after their dialect or their story and their being able to tell or write it grammatically well?

Is a story that is written in Karanga, Ndau, Manyika or Korekore problematic merely because it does not use standard Shona? Are we not in the process, contributing to the destruction of our beautiful linguistic diversity. Are we not denying equal opportunities to other citizens and giving certain students, writers and their languages a raw deal? We should not continue regarding our dialects as inferior and insignificant 35 years later, in an independent Zimbabwe. I think that the actual threat to our languages is the continued second-class status given to the dialects that make up Shona. This is our chance to preserve and promote all our dialects, to tap their fresh way of expressing ideas.

We should not attempt to restrict the use of our dialects under the pretext of promoting standard Shona, because Shona is, and has not been made richer by the amalgamation of the dialects. Instead, Shona is like reading a cafeteria menu card, it gives options to pick and use certain words and syntax structures, but relegating a lot to the junkyard. And those words and idioms that get discarded go on to die, because words that are not in everyday use become archaic and forgotten. If Shona was rich because of borrowing from the dialects that make it up, then we would not be struggling to translate a lot of words. We would simply be drawing from a large pool of words and that would benefit us immensely. So, Shona as a hybrid language is poor because it is prescriptive?

We should never regard linguistic diversity as a source of problems, but an opportunity for liberating and refreshing creativity, a rich heritage and true freedom of expression. I have had the wonderful opportunity to reflect on how the Zimbabwean dialects have been a part of my life and in the process helped to open my eyes. Originally, I am a Manyika man from Zimunya who relocated to Njanja before migrating to Mount Darwin and growing up among the Korekore people. Later, I got married to a Karanga woman from Zaka. I am now a resident of Harare, a place where those that come from outlying areas are quickly made to discard their dialects and adjust to Shona. What I have learnt is that, languages are beautiful like a variety of flowers in a garden. The beauty is not just in how they have ways of expressing ideas and describing things. The beauty is also in the way the languages are spoken. One lady, a television and radio personality, Hazvinei Sakarombe has won the hearts of many as a presenter because by being true to her Manyika dialect, she has brought in a refreshing approach to broadcasting.

We should therefore consider linguistic diversity as an asset and not a threat or a problem. I say this because in 50 years to come, we may not even remember the beauty of the dialects we once had. This is why I am excited about the proposed language council by the Ministry of Sport, Arts and Culture. We should celebrate the heritage of our rich languages. Language diversity is a unique identity marker that at the same time encourages linguistic minorities to celebrate, conserve and document their songs, poems and stories.

Unfortunately, we have been colonised too long to appreciate the diversity. If one is heard expressing himself or herself in deep Korekore, Manyika, Ndau or Karanga, they become a “negative” spectacle and a source of all sorts of crude jokes. The result is that the speaker of the dialect is forced to shut up until they can speak Shona like the rest of us.

I have just finished editing a beautiful collection of Shona short stories to be published by Bhabhu Books before the end of the year. While I was reading the stories, I was tempted to edit those that were not written in standard Shona and “whip” them into line, but I stopped that process after I realised that I had completely destroyed and diluted one remarkable story. It was then, that I said to myself since we have Shona as a hybrid, let us not force the real and original dialects to be silent. I think that as a country we have allowed certain decisions to strangle and choke life out of our beautiful dialects. We need to be bold enough to give teachers and learners the freedom to write as they speak, and to speak as their dialects allow them — that is a human right too. Bob Marley said, “Keep your culture, don’t be afraid of the wolf pack.”

An unwritten language loses out in so many ways — it is limited in possibilities; it does not reach and enjoy its potential or fully benefit its speakers. The spoken and written word complement each other. Besides the need to have a Bible written in local languages, it was extremely important for us to have Shona as a written language for business and communication. Even our very early leaders found it necessary to be able to read and write. Although Lobengula could not read or write, he had a seal for signing official documents. He also realised the value of education, such that as far back as 1895, he sent his sons — Njube, Nguboyenja and Mpezeni to school in Cape Town.

While language is an essential communication tool that propels socio-economic development, written language is critical for capturing, documenting and preserving. I think that the creation of Shona was necessary at some stage in our history, but we now need flexibility in the way we use it.

Insisting on standard Shona dims the brilliance of the nuggets in our dialects. And for Ndau to be bunched together with Karanga, Manyika, Korekore and Zezuru is actually a great mistake. Diversity is essential for survival, it makes us different, unique and that which makes us special can be what makes us strong.