DEFYING THE STATUS QUO: A CASE OF SELECTED FEMALE CHARACTERS IN NGUGI’S GRAIN OF WHEAT
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper discusses three female characters who defy the status quo in Ngugi’s A Grain of Wheat. They defy the status quo by refusing to be intimidated by men. They have gone against the social and political order that defines patriarchal societies in Africa. Succinctly, language is the tool the characters use to express their courage. They publicly rebuke and respond to men’s patriarchal-related treatment as shown in the discourse. Through main female characters like Mumbi, Wambui, and Mukami, we see a clear demonstration that women are core- partners in the fight for social justice in African society. The paper analyses figurative lexical items and other clauses with marked meanings that women use as agents of communication and action. The study applied Contextual, Relevance, and Referential theories. Primary data was elicited from Ngugi’s A Grain of Wheat by reading chapter by chapter while taking down key clauses, phrases, and sentences that contain target information. The study used qualitative methodology to collect data. The data was descriptively analyzed since the study’s objectives were meant to describe, explain, and interpret the conditions of the present phenomena. The study revealed that language in use is context-bound and each contextual use of language should be understood from that particular environment of action. The other factor observed is that language can be used as a weapon for social change. Furthermore, the language female characters use in A Grain of Wheat aid in understanding the text’s female characters and their individual and collective personalities.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
KNUMJ uses Creative Common (CC) Attribution (BY) 4.0 International License which guarantees people (readers) and organisations unlimited rights to share, use, and build upon works published in this journal; all they need to do is to acknowledge the sources (authors).
References
Bhasin, K. (2006). What Is Patriarchy. Women Unlimited. New Delhi.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Brink, J.B and Wood, M. J. (1998). Advanced Designs in Nursing Research. 2nd edition. Mouton and Co. Nichols.
Cabag, Y. (2021). The most common Figures of Speech: definitions, examples, and how to use each. TCK Publishing
Cambridge Dictionary (2021). Available at http//:dictionary. Cambridge.org
Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120-123.
Depraetere, I (2019). Meaning in Context and Contextual Meaning: A Perspective on the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface Applied to modal verbs: French Journal of English Linguistics:1-1
Frege, G. (1892). ‘On sense and reference.’ In P. Geach & M. Black, eds., Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, 56-78. Oxford.
Grice, H. (1975). “Logic and conversation”. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol 3. Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Modes of Meaning and Modes of Expression: Types of Grammatical Structure and their Determination by Different Semantic Functions. In J. Webster (Ed.). On Grammar. The Collected Works of
M. A. K. Halliday. Vol. 1. (pp. 196218). Continuum.
Hornby A. S. (2003). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford University Press: New York.
Jenkins, J. (20014). English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford Press.
Kombo, D. and Tromp, D. (2006). Proposal and Thesis writing. Paulines Publications.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers.
Lubbungu, J. (2020). Images of Women in God's Bits of Wood: The Perspective of Sex Role Stereotype. Kabwe: Kwame Nkrumah University. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI) | Volume VII, Issue XII, December 2020 | ISSN 2321–2705
Mwanambuyu, C. (2011). A Socio-Pragmatic Analysis of Some Silozi Euphemisms. Unpublished MA dissertation. Lusaka: University of Zambia.
Ngugi WaThiong’o (1967). A Grain of Wheat. London: Heinemann Educational
Nowell, L. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16 (1), 1-13.
Oladele, A. B (2010). Proverbial Oppression of Women in Yoruba African Culture: A Philosophical Overview. Onabanjo University, Nigeria. Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya (PAK) New Series, Vol.2 No.1, June 2010, pp.21-36
Ousmane, S. (1962). God's Bits of Wood. London: Heinemann
Rawson, H. (1981). A Dictionary of Euphemisms and Other Double-talk. New York: New York: Crown Publishers.
Sakshi, S. (2015). The Delineation of Women Characters in Ngugi Wa Thiongo’s Fiction. DIT University, Dehradun Uttarakhand, India. Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL) A Peer Reviewed (Refereed) International Journal http://www.rjelal.com Vol.3.3.2015 (July-Sep)
Saussare, F.de. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sultana, A. (2011). Patriarchy and Women’s Subordination: A Theoretical Analysis. University of Dhaka. The Arts Faculty of Journal, July 2010-June 2011.
Taylor J, Sims J, Haines TP. 2012. The influence of protection, palliation and costs on mobility optimization of residents in nursing homes: a thematic analysis of discourse. Int J Nursing Student. 49(11):1364–1374.
Tenant, J. (2017). Why ‘Context’ is important for Research. Scienceopen.com: research publication Network.
Tune, S. (2016). Sentence understanding depends on contextual use of semantic and real-world knowledge. Lubeck: university of Lubeck
Wilson & Sperber (2002). In L. Horn & G. Ward (eds) Blackwell’s Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge.
Wittegenstein. L. (2018). Language Games and Contexts of Meaning. Oxford University.