Terminological enrichment of Luganda in the field of agriculture

Abstract

This study aimed at empowering Luganda terminologically in the field of agriculture. Utilizing a blend of the Community-Based Terminology Model (CBTM) (Namyalo, 2019) and the Logical Thinking of a Terminological Elaborator (LTTEM) (Namyalo, 2022) intertwined with PEGITOSCA (Kiingi, 1998), a mnemonic reformulation of designating principles which stand for Precision, Economy, Generativity, Internationality, Transparency, Anti–Obscenity (objectivity), Systematicity, Clarity, and Acceptability, the existing terms used in agriculture by the farmers in Mpigi District were streamlined. For the terms that were non-existent in Luganda but commonly used in English, their equivalents were coined and tested for appropriateness and acceptability among the farmers and agricultural extension officers. This was intended to ensure that these terms are PEGITOSCA-compliant. To strengthen Luganda’s capacity to express agricultural knowledge, the research assessed existing terminology and identified lexical gaps that limit communication in the field. A total of 209 English agricultural terms were sourced from Black's Dictionary of Agriculture (2016) and compared with Luganda equivalents. Interviews with local farmers documented the terms they commonly use, resulting in 137 Luganda terms matching English agricultural concepts, showcasing the richness of local vocabulary. However, 72 English terms lacked direct Luganda equivalents, highlighting the need for further terminology development. The study also evaluated how well current Luganda terms address agricultural concepts and meet farmers' needs. The findings revealed that farmers effectively use Luganda terms, often with multiple translations for a single English concept, such as five Luganda equivalents for "prune," tailored to specific contexts. While this demonstrates flexibility, it also underscores the potential for confusion without standardization. Categorizing frequently used terms into conceptual clusters reflected how farmers naturally organize agricultural knowledge. The identified Luganda terms were assessed against the PEGITOSCA principles, which involve Precision, Economy, Generativity, Internationality, Transparency, Anti-Obscenity, Systematicity, Clarity, and Acceptability. The analysis showed that the collected terms generally met these criteria, indicating they were clear and meaningful for Luganda speakers. For instance, okulima (cultivate) conveyed precise actions without ambiguity. However, all terms lacked "Internationality," meaning they were not widely recognized beyond Luganda-speaking communities.The newly proposed Luganda agricultural terms were tested for acceptance among local users. Interviews with twelve participants showed that most of the 72 terms were clear, easy to understand, and suitable for use, with 21 terms scoring a perfect 8 out of 8 and being ranked as Highly Acceptable. Another 25 terms were rated Acceptable, while 18 were seen as Fairly Acceptable but needing some improvement. Only 8 terms received low scores and were rated Minimally Acceptable, yet still usable with revisions. None of the terms were rejected entirely. Lastly, Luganda has a strong foundation for agricultural vocabulary but requires additional terms to address modern and technical concepts fully. The identified gaps present an opportunity to develop culturally relevant terms that are accessible to farmers. Expanding and refining Luganda’s agricultural vocabulary is crucial for improving communication and enabling farmers to engage effectively with both traditional and modern agricultural practices.