"Metaphors and metonymies of ethnicity in Kenya1 2 Aunga Solomon Onchoke and Xu WenABSTRACT:This is a cognitive linguistic study of metaphorical and metonymical terms aboutethnicity in Kenya, a country that has witnessed inter-ethnic conflicts and political alignmentsbased on different ethnicities experienced especially during the general elections. The study wasset to identify metaphorical and metonymical termsabout ethnicity, analyze the cognitiveprocesses involved in their mapping and interpretation.The data collected from 32 differentethnic groups were analyzed using the Cognitive Metaphor Theory of Lakoff and Johnson, andtwo models anchored underneath; the social cultural and the Great Chain of Being Metaphor.The results suggest that interpretations and usage of metaphors and metonymies of ethnicitypervade the lexicon of ethnicity in Kenya and form networks by which different ethnicitiesconceptualize each other as plants, animals, objects, places,foods, behaviors, physiques,enemies,economic status and economic activities. Also, it is evident that metaphors andmetonymies create mental images, reflect the culture of people, create avenues forcommunication and their interpretation relies on the context. The study concludes by suggestingthat the government puts in placestrong institutions and mechanisms to prevent hate speech andsome people from demeaning and undermining others which may lead to ethnic conflicts.Keywords: metaphor, cognitive linguistics, culture, ethnicity, tribe1. Introduction Ethnic politics which leads to ethnic conflicts are wide spread in most multi-ethnic countrieslacking strong institutions and mechanisms for national integration and cohesion. This studyanalyses conceptual metaphors, metonymies and other conceptions of ethnicity in Kenya from acognitive linguistics viewpoint. Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) was developed bycognitive linguistics who argued that the metaphor is a property of language, thought and alinguistic phenomenon, and that it involves perceiving one experience in terms of another1 Aunga Solomon Onchoke isa Doctoral candidate in English and Linguistics, Department of English andLinguistics,Southwest University, Beibei, Chongqing, 400715 China. 2Xu Wen is a Professor of English and Linguistics, Dean of College of International Studies, Southwest University,Beibei, Chongqing, 400715 China.1 (Lakoff&Johnson, 1980; Gibbs, 1994; Grady, 1997; Langacker, 1999; Kövecses, 2002, 2005;3 Evans & Green,2006 and Jakel, 2002). Thus, the metaphor involves two notions or conceptualdomains: the Y (also called topic, target or tenor) and the X (also called vehicle or source). Theyargued further that in CMT, we use imagination to map and understand experiences by either4 using metaphors or metonyms ( read Lakoff& Johnson,1980: 35-40; Lakoff& Turner, 1989:103-104; Gunter Radden&ZoltanKovecses, 1999) on the basis of image schemas withontological correspondences between the domains whereby the Y domain is abstract andunderstood in terms of the X domain because of sharing certain attributes (Lakoff& Johnson,1980&1987; Langacker, 1999; Evans & Green, 2006).In this study, we analyze ethnicity metaphors and metonymies in Kenya within the Social- cultural metaphor model which is a type of resemblance metaphor where the source and targetare social-culturally related (readLakoff and Johnson, 1980; Grady, 1999, 2005; Moon, 2006;5 Gibbs, 1994; Johnson, 1987&Lakoff, 1993;Kevesces 2005; Ritchie2013& Takada, et al., 2006).We also employ the Great Chain of Being (GCM)metaphor modelto examine how tribalismviews are conceptualized, transmitted and perpetuated by means of metaphors and metonymiesof food, economic activity and status, place, animal, plant, and object in Kenya which is a multi- 6 ethnic country. GCB metaphor (Lakoff& Turner, Mark 1989; Kövecses, 2002)was employed toshow how by using the metaphor against the other community dehumanizes them and spreadingenmity which may lead to ethnic conflicts. We shall show howGCB metaphor allows us toconceptualize different ethnic groups in terms of nonhuman attributes.2. Studies on Ethnicity3 Read, Jakel (2002), “Hypotheses revisited: the cognitive theory of metaphor applied to Religious texts”, in:metaphorik.de, No. 2, pp. 20-42., for a comprehensive analyses of the nine hypotheses.4 Lakoff& Johnson (1980: 35-40); Lakoff& Turner (1989: 103-104); Gunter Radden&ZoltanKovecses (1999)distinguish between metaphor and metonymy whereby they agree that metaphor and metonymy are closely relatedidealized cognitive models (ICM), whereby, in metaphor, there are two conceptual domains involved, one beingunderstood in terms of the other, while metonymy only involves one conceptual domain, i.e. the mapping occurswithin a single domain and not across domains.5Read Takada et al. (2006) used the resemblance metaphor which they called “social-cultural metaphors” inanalyzing how a woman is perceived in Japanese6Read Lakoff and Turner (1989: 172) who argue thatGCB is a metaphoric cultural model which places all thethings in the universe, human beings and their properties on a vertical scale of lower and higher levels.Hierarchically, from the lowest level is occupied by inanimate substances and things, plants, animals, human beings,society, God and the universe, respectively in that order. Each level has unique features of it level and all features ofa lower level but lacks the features of a higher level which is superior.2 Previous studies on ethnicity have shown that ethnic conflicts lead towards ethnic politics whichare often conceived as conflicts among ethnic groups and are very commonamong manydeveloping multi ethnic countries (Hashmi, 2015; Montalvo, &Reynal-Querol, 2010). Indeed,there have been ethnic conflicts in Somalia, Lebanon, Israel, Algeria, Nigeria, South Sudan,Ethiopia, India, and even the most developed USA. May (2012) has clearly shown that ethnicityis a delicate human identity feature that manifests differently in different societies and reflectsdiversity in the Society whose internal harmony and stability depend on how this diversity isperceived and handled by the various governments.Many scholars (like Mathiu, 2016;Murabula,2016; Kimotho, 2016; Yieke, 2010; Weber, 2009; Ochiel, 2008; Miguel, 2004;Sambanis, 2001; Reynal-Querol, 2001a; Petersen, Roger 2002 among others),have devoted a lotof time to study this area which has destroyed many countries.Kenya has witnessed inter-ethnic conflicts and politics based on ethnic alignments experiencedespecially during the general elections carried out after every five years as witnessed from 1992to date(Steadman 2007). Different causes have been mentioned in various post-electioncommission reports, for example, the Commission of Inquiry into Post-election Violence(CIPEV) popularly known as the Waki Commission (CIPV, 2008), Non-governmentalOrganizations (NGO) reports, such as Minority Rights Group International (MRG, 2008) and theKenya National Human Rights Commission (KNHRC, 2008), as having fanned tribal animosityand hatred into Kenyans killing one another.Among the scholars who have had an influential study of ethnic identity in the world are Glazerand Moynihan (1963), they state that ethnicity can be negative in a society. They argue thatrather than eradicating ethnic differences, modern American society has created a new awarenessin people which is retrogressive in a cohesive society, a concern about roots and origins wherebypeople live in neighborhoods dominated by people with the same origins as themselves and usingtheir ethnic networks actively when looking for jobs or a spouse. This argument underscores thegravity of the problem of ethnicity not only in Africa but also in developed countries likeAmerica. However, not all countries with many ethnic groups have ethnicity as a problem. Forinstance, China, according to ZangXiaowei (2015), on the global stage, is often seen to be ahomogenous nation when, in fact, it is a diverse multi-ethnic society, with more than 55 minoritynationality groups recognized by the government. Their national integration and cohesion is3 attributed to the Confucian concept of cultural community which plays down ethnicity andencourages the integration of minority nationalities into the majority Han-Chinese society. It is,therefore, a fact that all human beings belong to an ethnic group, whether in Europe, Africa,Melanesia or Central America and there are ethnic groups in every city from the most developedcountries to the small developing countries like Kenya (Glazer and Moynihan, 1963).7 The history of the Kenyan tribes has been written extensively by Kenyan historians, oraltraditionalists, archaeologists, historical linguists and cultural anthropologists, who acknowledgethat Kenya, being a multi-ethnic country, was divided along ethnic lines before the coming of thecolonialists, making it easier to be colonized. Consequently, Kukubor (2006) adds that ethnicity8 has been an issue even in the Bible (traced to Genesis 11.7-8 KJV); there were ethnic squabblesand wars once for a while, thus, the languages we speak, the customs and traditions we holddear, the food we eat, and the clothing we wear, all have some connection to our ethnicities.It is a fact that if ethnicity is not handled well, it can lead to conflicts as witnessed in Africa andother areas as Horiwitz (1985), a prominent political scientist has emphasized that democraciesare normally destabilized by the permanent exclusion of some minority groups from power. Hesaid further that ethnic divisions are fixed and elections based on ethnic divisions, therefore,produce permanent winners and permanent losers based on ethnic demography. In addition, thepoliticization of ethnic divisions threatens democratic stability just like the Kenyan case(Onyango 2008). Similarly, Elena Gadjanova(2017) stresses that issues dealing with differencesin ethnicity are rhetorical tools intended to splinter the support of a key opponent by employingnarratives of ethnically motivated discrimination, victimization, or exclusion,and promisingremedial action. These are the issues put forward by opposing politicians to win support fromtheir ethnicities not knowing that they are spreading ethnic animosity. Ethnic incitements caninflame ethnic resentments, entrench existing conflicts, and limit the space for compromise on7Read Kenyan historians, oral traditionalists, archaeologists, historical linguists and cultural anthropologists such asOgot (1967); Were (1967); Muriuki (1974); Ochieng (1974); Mwanzi (1977); Aseka (1989) and Onyango(2008),who have written extensively about the Kenyan ethnic communities in the pre-colonial and post-colonialperiod.8Genesis 11.7-8 KJV. 7.„Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understandone another?s speech. 8. So lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth and they left off tobuild the city?4 9 contentious issueslike the case of Kenya in 2008 when the key tribal kingpins Kibaki(Kikuyutribe) and Odinga (Luo tribe) could not agree (CIPV, 2008).While an extensive literature exists that links ethnicity to the emergence of civil conflicts andblaming it on political competition, exclusion of minority groups from power, colonialadministration, ethnic structures, nation-building policies, religious differences, skewedallocation of resources and new media (Bratton, &Kimenyi, 2008; Collier andHoeffler, 1998;Elbadawi, Ibrahim, 1999; Erikson, 1992; Erikson, 1998; Erikson, 1998; Harakhe, 2013;Horowitz, 1985; Kimenyi et al. 2016; KoigiWaWamwere, 2001; Mathiu, 2016; Ochiel, 2008 andYieke, 2010), few authors have exclusively focused on the language factors.It is from theperspective that this research seeks to examine and analyze how the use of metaphorical,metonymical terms and other conceptions to refer to other tribes,can fuel ethnic animosityleading to inter-ethnic wars. For instance, in 2007, it was argued that Kenyan tribes in towns andvillages resorted to using of negative ethnicity (through the use of derogatory terms or hatespeech) to undermine each other through the exploitation of its most vulnerable fault-line:ethnicity, which exploded into Kenyans butchering each other.Although investigations into various ways of promoting ethnic cohesion and national unity havebeen explored, linguists have not systematically and adequately addressed this phenomenonhitherto. There is insufficient research data in the influence of metaphorical language andconceptions on ethnic cohesion and national unity. Therefore, the influence of language onethnic cohesion and national unity is little known. Language cannot be separated from politics; itis not only a linguistic issue but also has to do with power, prejudice, competition, discrimination10 and subordination issues (see Yieke 2007& Noam Chomsky 1979).9 rd Kibaki was the 3president of Kenya(between 2002-2013) whereby it was during his second term re-electioncontest (2007) between him and the opposition doyen, RailaOdinga, that there were tribal clashes between theirsupportersfrom different main tribal camps10 In summary, Noam Chomsky (1979: 191) puts it, „Questions of language are basically questions of power?. Inaddition, it is justified to argue that we depend on language in most things we do and it is language that puts peopleinto different groups, each with different views, others lacking channels of communication, therefore, creatingenemies and friends (us and them). This is what makes language an important factor in defining ethnicity because tosay a language is to say society, thus, if you speak one particular language, you belong to that particular society andtribe (Yieke 2007). In Kenya there are 43 tribes, therefore, we may assume that there are an equal number oflanguages or more because of foreigners and their languages living or working within the country.5 3.MethodologyThe study adopted a qualitative design to plan, build the content and form of this study. It alsoenabled the researcher to determine and report the way things are (Mugenda and Mugenda,1999). Similarly, the study made use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of dataanalysis to analyze and present the data.This research was conducted over a period of 6 months (from July to December 2016) in bothurban and rural communities in the eight provinces in Kenya. The researcher collected data fromnative speakers of 32 Kenyan languages using a mixture of purposive and snowball sampling(see Milroy, 1987) procedures because of the sensitive nature of the topic, by using friends torecommend other friends from the different tribes. Assisted by the research assistants, theresearcher sampled 10 informants from each of the 32 ethnicities. In total there were 320informants (160 men and 160 women) proficient in the native languages who gave 392 terms.This small sample was chosen in order to allow for in-depth investigation and analysis of data(Trudgill, 1973). Social representation was achieved, since language varies across a wide rangeof social dimensions within a population, such as a speaker?s age, gender, ethnic identity,regional background and educational level (Podesva and Sharma, 2013). The only limitation isthat the words or phrases were collected as single units; we could not capture and present thefeelings, facial expressions, attitudes, intonations and other nuances associated with actual orpractical speech occasions.The researcher,assisted by researcher assistant, recorded the terms and their meanings foraccuracy.The study also used a video camera and interview schedule as methods of datacollection. The interview schedule contained open-ended questions which permitted a greaterdepth of response, which in turn gave an insight into the feelings, background, hiddenmotivation, intuitions, interests and decisions of the respondents (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999).Triangulation enabled the researcher to maximize the validity and reliability of the researchfindings (Golafshani, 2003). The interview method was used whereby the researcher came faceto face with the subjects using an interview schedule (Seliger and Shohamy, 1990). Thequestions were presented to the respondents who are equally proficient speakers of their native6 "