During the recent Eid Mubarak celebrations, a few Kiswahili advocates in one of the WhatsApp groups in Uganda demonstrated mixed reactions.
This followed a poster with the text “Towa siimu yako,” as a translation of “switch off your phone.” Given the degree of similarity of translated words to the Kiswahili language, the text was generally perceived to be of that language – Kiswahili. Unfortunately, most group members remained silent, probably puzzled by this ‘Kiswahili’ text.
However, the few who commented on it seemed to agree that the translation was perfect because it was communicatively oriented, much as others maintained that it was incorrectly translated. Indeed, one individual suggested that the text exhibits the form of Kiswahili historically used in Uganda, so it be.
Unfortunately, the translated text’s target audience was/is unknown. Nonetheless, with or without knowing the audience, the translated text defies several conventions, eg, of the Kiswahili language (i.e, at the word, sentence, and meaning level), even if translated using the communicative approach or for communication purposes. Yes, the communicative language learning and usage models provide room for errors. However, those agreeing to the translated text as correct might have forgotten that communicatively, there is room for error, mainly in the spoken form of the language rather than in its written form, as in the above text.
The written errors are accommodated more in classroom settings where formal instructions of a particular language occur than in public spaces, e.g, in the form of posters. In most cases, once a text has been translated or written correctly or incorrectly in a book, newspaper, or public space, it becomes ‘permanent.’ It is assumed by whoever (mainly beginner language users) reads it considers it authentic. Nonetheless, in the spoken form, the speaker – either in classrooms or public spaces, can use different techniques to quickly correct what s/he has said in case it is incorrect. Yes, sometimes we write texts or speak words in classrooms or public spaces that we think are correct, yet they are contrary, mainly at the word, sentence, or meaning levels.
In any case, for a country like Uganda where the use of Kiswahili in public spaces is still peripheral, as its advocates, we need to interest ourselves more in its incorrect use in any form – i.e, written or spoken. It will save us from being in the same boat as one of our neighbouring countries’ population that still grapple with the ‘correct’ use of this language yet have been using it for an extended time. In other words, it is necessary to attempt advising whoever is concerned on the correct form of such texts other than keeping quiet or reinventing the wheel with justifications, including those given in the first paragraph of this essay. This can easily be done if we familiarise ourselves with basic but crucial aspects of a language – in terms of acquiring, learning, and usage. Thus, we need to distinguish the written form of a language and its spoken form. Yes, contemporary models – e.g, communicative theories and their related approaches and methods – for learning a given language allow one to use that language with errors, as someone learns it.
Nonetheless, the question(s) that can arise is related to the relevance of the communicative notions of accuracy, fluency, and complexity in spoken/written texts – either in public spaces or classrooms. In other words, at what level should, for example, accuracy as a notion be rendered relevant in a text whose purpose is to communicate a given message? In fact, accuracy must be carefully adhered to in translations if the translated text is to communicate or express the intended meaning mainly in public spaces.
Dr Caesar Jjingo is a Kiswahili pedagogy and materials development specialist at Makerere University.
No comments:
Post a Comment