Teaching Chishona in Zimbabwe: A Curriculum Analysis Approach

Abstract

Historical Background of ChiShona There several dimensions as to where the word 'ChiShona' came from. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (1980: 163) the Shona are a group of culturally similar Bantu-speaking tribes of Negroid-Armenoid origin, numbering someone million in the 1960s. Mutswairo (1996) says that the so called 'Shona' 'Mbire' and not The ancestors of the Mbire were part of the general Negroid population that was later called Bantu by a number of European linguists who had undertaken studies in African languages. Beach, in Mutswairo (1996) states that some place this migration between 300 and 200 B.C. and that by between 500 and 300 B.C. the Black people had filled the entire sub-region as far south as the Eastern Cape. Mutswairo (1996: 8) says, migration forms part of the general pattern that includes the ancestors of the Mbire from Guruuswa; now referred to as the Shona. When Europeans came into this region in 1890, they identified two districts, namely Mashonaland and Matebeleland. Matebeleland was the district for the Ndebele speaking people and Mashonaland was the district of the Shona speaking people (Kahari, 1990).The term 'Shona' therefore referred to the people and 'ChiShona' the language of the Shona people. In its broadest sense 'ChiShona' represents the language, habits, beliefs, culture and wisdom of the Shona people. As a representation of all these aspects, we have 'ChiShona' as a subject in the Zimbabwean school curriculum. Specifically, the term ChiShona came into use in the 19th Century (Mutswairo, 1996). Magwa (1999) says that it is believed that the word Shona originated from the Ndebele. This is because the Shona ancestors lived in the Western region which the Ndebele called 'esitshonalanga'. From this word came the name AmaTshona which became ChiShona we know today. Despite all these dimensions, what is interesting is that Magwa (1999), Doke (1931), Mutswairo (1996), Chimhundu (1997) and many others all agree that ChiShona is an amalgamation of five main sub-languages namely; Chikaranga, ChiNdau, ChiManyika Chizezuru and Chikorekore. Therefore, ChiShona is not exclusive; this explains why we do really understand each other despite the various languages. The unification of the Shona started off with the missionaries in the hope of spreading the gospel. The missionary conference that met in 1901 accepted an alphabet for universal unification and application in Thus, Springer, in Doke (1931:4) says, ... it is possible to have one Bible for the whole of Mashonaland. The major languages were studied and written in different geographical regions, the regional or social language of Zezuru was studied at Chishawasha (1892), Waddilove (1896) and Epworth under father A. Burbridge, A.M. Hartmann, J. White and W.A. Elliot. Ndau was studied at Chikore and Mount Selinda under the American Board Missionaries in 1893. The Manyika language was studied at St Augustine' s Penal onga in 1893; at Old Umtali and also at Triashill in 1890 under the Catholic fathers like D.R. Pelly, E.H. Etheridge and Mrs A.E. Springer. The Karanga language was studied at Morgenster in 1892, Mukaro and Gokomere under the tutelage of prominent figures like Father A.A. Louw, Mrs C.S. Louw, Father J.T. Helm and A.A. Louw (junior) (Kahari, 1990). Each missionary society had been following its own method of writing, hence varying orthography. This resulted in chaos, confusion and misunderstandings. Therefore, the missionaries in an effort to produce a common version of the Bible for the Shona people did a lot of work in the early writing of the Shona language, and later, they agreed on a Common Shona Orthography (Magwa, 1999). It is important that there two types of the Shona language, the spoken and written forms. Within the origins of ChiShona there were shifts and turns mainly to transform ChiShona from an oral to written form. Emphasis was now in changes in orthography. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.