Maintaining the Kimbeere Language in Embu County, Kenya: A Pathway to Social Equity and Cultural Sustainability

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published
https://doi.org/10.71064/spu.amjr.2.3.2025.486
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): Special Issue - African Multidisciplinary Journal of Research (AMJR) - 2025

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Fridah Muthue Kaviti
St. Paul's University
Dr. Nobert Ombati Basweti
University of Nairobi

Abstract

The sociolinguistic dynamics of the preservation of the Kimbeere language in Embu County, Eastern Kenya, are examined in this study, emphasizing the language's vital role in promoting social justice among the Mbeere people. Using the frameworks of the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977) and Joshua Fishman's Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), it examines the sociocultural, educational, and policy-related factors that affect the language's resilience or loss.  The independent variable, the preservation of the Kimbeere language, was evaluated using community involvement and intergenerational transmission benchmarks. Social equity, the dependent variable, was measured using indicators of civic engagement, educational access, and cultural recognition. The results should demonstrate that, rather than merely improving cultural preservation, active language maintenance is a dynamic tool for empowering minority groups by improving their access to social recognition, civic engagement, and unbiased development.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Maintaining the Kimbeere Language in Embu County, Kenya: A Pathway to Social Equity and Cultural Sustainability. (2025). African Multidisciplinary Journal of Research, 2(3), 613-629. https://doi.org/10.71064/spu.amjr.2.3.2025.486

How to Cite

Maintaining the Kimbeere Language in Embu County, Kenya: A Pathway to Social Equity and Cultural Sustainability. (2025). African Multidisciplinary Journal of Research, 2(3), 613-629. https://doi.org/10.71064/spu.amjr.2.3.2025.486

References

  1. Allard, R., & Landry, R. (1994). Subjective Ethnolinguistic vitality: A comparison of two DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1994.108.117
  2. Measures. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 108, 111-134.
  3. Brannen, J., & Moss, G. (2012). Critical issues in designing mixed methods policy research.
  4. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 789-801.
  5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433796 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433796
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  7. Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
  8. Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139106856
  9. Fishman, J.A. (1972). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social sciences approach
  10. to Language in society. Newbury House Publishers.
  11. Fishman, J.A. (1980). Minority language maintenance and ethnic mother tongue schools. Modern DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/325298
  12. Language Journal, 64, 167-172.
  13. Fishman, J.A. (2001). Reversing language shift: A 21st-century perspective. Multilingual Matters.
  14. Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y., & Taylor, D.M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in an ethnic group
  15. Relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Languages, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348), Academic Press.
  16. Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1987.68.69
  17. For language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 68, 68-99.
  18. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834
  19. Kembo-Sure. (2003). Language planning and policies in Kenya. In B. Brock-Utne, Z. Desai, &
  20. M. Qorro (Eds.), Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA) (pp. 67–84). E&D Limited.
  21. Mufwene, S. S. (2017). Language Vitality: The weak theoretical Underpinnings of what can DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0065
  22. It is an exciting research area. Language 93(4). E202-e223
  23. Mufwene, S. S. (2006; 114). Language Endangerment: An Embarrassment for Linguistics; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01291-8
  24. CLS 42 the panels: Proceedings from the Para sessions of the Forty–second Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Volume 42 – 2
  25. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042605
  26. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Allen Lane. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054578
  27. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
  28. Un.
  29. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. (2003). Language vitality and
  30. Endangerment. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org
  31. Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalization. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597037
  32. Palgrave Macmillan