\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={The Role of Kiswahili in Promoting Intercultural Communication and Strengthening National Ethos Amongst the Co-Cultures of the Rift Valley in Kenya},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2021-10-15 (revised: 15 October 2021)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2021-10-15}
\title{The Role of Kiswahili in Promoting Intercultural Communication and Strengthening National Ethos Amongst the Co-Cultures of the Rift Valley in Kenya}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dedan  Luvaga}

             \author[2]{Dr. Tanyitiku  Enaka}

             \author[3]{Prof. Mwamzandi Y.  Issa}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 8 September 2021 Accepted: 4 October 2021 Published: 15 October 2021}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


This study focuses on Kiswahili as an intercultural communication tool that bridges the gap of language barrier in the diverse Rift Valley of Kenya. It aims to investigate the relevance of a cross-cultural language on interrelationships among people from diverse cultural sub-sets in the Rift Valley and to evaluate the role of Kiswahili in enhancing intercultural relations and strengthening national ethos in the region. Quantitative data are collected through questionnaires and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The narrative analytical approach is used to investigate how people live their intercultural experiences when utilizing a common language. Through theory triangulation, the study is supported by the ?Alternation Model? as the applicable model to explain the lived experiences in a cosmopolitan society backed by the respondent?s opinion. The study establishes that language difference results in tense intercultural relations among the co-cultures, illustrated by discrimination, intimidation, social exclusion, biased acceptance and stereotyping.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{acculturation, intercultural communication, national ethos, identity, co-cultures.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 \par
utilisée pour enquêter sur la manière dont les individus vivent leurs expériences interculturelles lorsqu'elles utilisent une langue commune. A travers la triangulation théorique, l'étude a été sous-tendue par le « modèle alternatif » comme modèle applicable pour expliquer les expériences vécues dans une société cosmopolite soutenue par l'opinion du répondant. L'étude a révélé que la différence de langue conduit à des relations interculturelles tendues parmi les co-cultures, dont des exemples sont la discrimination, l'intimidation, l'exclusion sociale, l'acceptation biaisée et les préjugés. Par ailleurs, l'étude a analysé la manière dont une langue transculturelle (kiswahili) limite l'acculturation à travers l'assimilation, la séparation et la marginalisation. Elle s'est focalisée sur la stratégie d'intégration de l'acculturation à travers l'utilisation de la contextualisation du kiswahili dans des milieux formels et informels dans la Vallée du Rift. L'étude conclut en élevant le kiswahili, une langue transculturelle qui unit, fait la fierté, permet la compréhension, aide les personnes à avoir une vision partagée ; une langue qui a une fonction identitaire et qui socialise les populations dans la Vallée du Rift du Kenya. 
\section[{General Introduction}]{General Introduction}\par
his first chapter explores the background of the research topic. The chapter states the research problem, provides research questions, the objectives, and the research hypothesis. The section provides the methodology of the study, delimitation of the scope and ends by providing the structure of the study. 
\section[{a) Background of the Study}]{a) Background of the Study}\par
Intercultural Communication (I.C.) cannot and should not be undermined for it is pivotal in streamlining national ethos, together with enhancing the intercultural understanding. Effective intercultural communication occurs when individuals use a cross-cultural language, which is understood by both parties in the discussion so that the language becomes a tool for mediation. With the advent of globalization, cross-cultural interaction is not new. It has existed for ages since the world is a global village. People travel to different parts within and outside their countries or areas of origin, looking for job opportunities and have to adapt to a new environment, which entails learning a new language where necessary  {\ref (Persikova, 2004: 224)}.\par
In articulation, the research focuses on the following tenets: How Kiswahili aids intercultural communication at formal and informal settings; the influence of Kiswahili in maintaining an identity, promoting unity, encouraging understanding through human interaction between the dominant and the cocultures; the influence of Kiswahili in handling all forms of discrimination, promoting shared vision and formation of positive intercultural relationships; Kiswahili as an agent of socialisation and finally how effective intercultural communication using Kiswahili translates into a source of pride among citizens in a cosmopolitan area. 
\section[{b) Statement of the Problem}]{b) Statement of the Problem}\par
Nowadays, a growing number of people are moving across cultural boundaries within the Rift Valley that had previously served as defining parameters of personal and cultural diversity and identity. Such migration causes cultural interaction which necessitates intercultural communication, which in turn dictates the need to have a lingua franca. The lack of an appropriate transborder language of communication always brings misunderstandings that compromise national ethos and drive intercultural conflicts among various diverse cultural sub-sets.\par
The ethnic friction causes political alignments that invoke potent perennial grievances that galvanise ethnic-oriented support bases, land tenure conflicts exacerbated by ethno-regionalist politics and sentiments, discrimination in resource distributions, (education bursaries, job opportunities), and language barrier often having tragic consequences. The above is part of the leads which informed the study to focus on answering the primary question: What role does Kiswahili play in promoting intercultural communication and strengthening national ethos amongst the cocultures of the Rift Valley in Kenya? 
\section[{c) Research Questions}]{c) Research Questions}\par
The general question stated above gives rise to two research questions that the study focuses on. They are: 1. How does the existence of a cross-cultural language affect interrelationship among individuals from different cultural sub-sets in the Rift Valley? 2. How does Kiswahili enhance intercultural relations and national ethos among diverse communities in the region? 
\section[{d) Objectives of the Study}]{d) Objectives of the Study}\par
This research aims to: 1. Investigate the relevance of a cross-cultural language on interrelationships among people from diverse cultural sub-sets in the Rift Valley. 2. Evaluate the role of Kiswahili in enhancing intercultural relations and strengthening national ethos in the region. 
\section[{e) Research Hypothesis}]{e) Research Hypothesis}\par
The study hypothesises that: 1. A cross-cultural language affects how people relate in a cosmopolitan region and consequently, becomes a unifying factor. 2. Kiswahili helps to define and build pillars of national ethos among the co-cultures of the Rift-Valley region in Kenya. 
\section[{f) Overview of the Methodology}]{f) Overview of the Methodology}\par
This survey incorporates the triangulation approach of inquiry that help us to understand the lived experiences, behaviors, emotions, and meanings that using a cross-culture language (Kiswahili) leverages on intercultural communication among sub-set cultures within a cosmopolitan area. Both qualitative and quantitative data are collected from the sample population through questionnaires.\par
By use of purposive sampling, five people in any administrative position in firms located in the Rift Valley are selected together with 20 other respondents. The 25 respondents meet critical selection criteria (stipulated in chapter three). Also, a random sampling procedure is applied to select other 25 participants to the survey to limit bias. The data is collected through the administration of interviews using structured and semistructured questionnaires, and sound recordings.\par
Data collected is analyzed using a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and the narrative analytical approach considering that the emphasis of this research is on how people make sense of their intercultural experiences when utilizing a common language. Narratives are coded using a twofold system in relation to available scholarly theoretical taxonomy. Participants' profiles are also considered to facilitate a thematic analysis of the descriptions, emerging themes, and sub-themes are summarized in tables.\par
Furthermore, the research underpins four social science theories that are reviewed to predict the chances of acculturation due to diverse interactions in a cosmopolitan environment. They include the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) propounded by \hyperref[b9]{Bennett (1993)}, the theory of Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (DAD) propounded by  {\ref Kramer (2013: 123-184}), the Fourfold Model by  {\ref Berry \& Annis (1994;} {\ref 2001: 382-406)}, and the Alternation Model propounded by LaFramboise et al  {\ref (1993)}. 
\section[{g) Delimitation of Scope}]{g) Delimitation of Scope}\par
This research is limited to four theories: The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) propounded by \hyperref[b9]{Bennett (1993)}, the theory of Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (DAD) propounded by  {\ref Kramer (2013: 123-184)}, the Fourfold Model by  {\ref Berry \& Annis (1994;} {\ref 2001: 382-406)}, and the Alternation Model propounded by LaFramboise et al  {\ref (1993)}.\par
Empirically, the study focuses on studies by \hyperref[b47]{Nussbaum (2011)}, \hyperref[b52]{Rattansi (2011)}  \hyperref[b65]{Wise (2010)} and  {\ref UNESCO (2005)}. These studies reflect the realia under study. Moreover, the study is geographically delimitated to the Rift Valley and not any other regions in Kenya since the area reflects a diverse meshwork of multicultural communities. The sample is limited to 50 respondents to represent the entire population, comprising individuals who are above 18 years and speak Kiswahili as well as any other language, preferably English. Finally, the study is conducted exclusively for six months. 
\section[{h) Structure of the Study}]{h) Structure of the Study}\par
The study is divided into five chapters, the general introduction, literature review, methodology, data presentation and analysis, and conclusion and recommendation.\par
Chapter One provides a background of the research and discusses significant aspects that include; the research problems, research questions, research objectives, research hypotheses, and an overview of the methodology.\par
Chapter two comprises literature review. It presents the conceptual, theoretical frameworks and empirical studies relevant to the study.\par
Chapter Three is the methodology. The chapter presents the methodological approach to the study, the population, the sample, the design, instruments of data collection, their administration method, and method of data collection, quality criteria, and analysis. Chapter four presents and analyses data for the study.\par
Chapter Five provides a conclusion of the study, unveils study findings, and recommends future research prospects.\par
To conclude, this chapter reflects the background to the problem of the study, which is the lack of an appropriate transborder language of communication that results in misunderstandings that compromise national ethos and drive intercultural conflicts among the diverse cultural sub-sets. To articulate the research problem, research questions are asked, objectives set and the hypothesis are stated. The chapter also presents an overview of methods and the theories to be used in the study. The forthcoming chapter reviews the literature that is significant to the research. 
\section[{Chapter Two}]{Chapter Two}\par
II. 
\section[{Literature Review}]{Literature Review}\par
The chapter provides a clear focus on a variety of concepts that relate to the study, the empirical and the theoretical framework of the inquiry.\par
The argument extends to focus against the intercultural communication tenet of gender interrelations in society. The humanizing impact of facts is significant to be put under practice to counter such controversies. It focuses on the peculiarity of the cultural worldview that exists, acting as an antidote to aspects of exploitation that can cut across ethnicity, heritage, or gender \hyperref[b7]{(Bennett, 2013)}. In multicultural environments, culture should be relatively understood based on the context.\par
ii. Diversity Diversity as a term is, at times, used synonymously as multicultural to refer to the existence of notable differences in cultures. In application, when a company implements a diversity policy, the law emphasizes how minorities will be involved in the recruitment process to create a multicultural firm. At times, the term inclusion is generally utilized when referring to matters that deal with multiculturality  {\ref (Bennett, \& Bennett, 2004: 147-165}). These matters are; stereotypes, prejudice, segregation, and the act of denying individuals equal rights in societies. Occasionally, the term diversity is utilized to mean cultural diversity. Limiting biases relating to diversity calls for the training of members of the community to recognize, respect as well as deal effectively with any forms of cultural differences in society.\par
iii. Cross-culturalism Cross-culturalism is the contact that happens between different cultural groups. It always applies in multinational cooperation where a multicultural workforce results in a cross-cultural relation and connection between the employees. Furthermore, exchange students or expatriate managers living in diverse cultural contexts possess substantial crosscultural intelligence (CQ)  {\ref (Berry, \& Annis, 1994;} {\ref 2001: 382-406)}. However, the cross-cultural contact alone does not validate to contribute to practical intercultural understanding. In some instances, it gives rise to defensiveness or negative stereotypes as opposed to the primary purpose of reducing stereotypes in society and increase the level of tolerance. As an academic discipline, cross-culturalism implies a comparative cultural study, an example of the cross-cultural research of emotional culture like smiling. 
\section[{iv. Interculturalism}]{iv. Interculturalism}\par
Interculturalism is the act of supporting crosscultural dialogue to challenge a tendency of selfsegregation within cultures. It goes beyond a mere acceptance of the idea of the existence of many cultures that exist in a society to promoting effective dialogue and cultural interactions among cultures \hyperref[b53]{(Remland et al., 2014)}. Interculturalism is a concept that has arisen to answer criticisms against the existing multiculturalism policies that have failed to bring inclusivity of cultures within a society but have gone further to divide the communities by legitimizing segregated separate societies that are isolating themselves and have highlighted their specificity. Interculturalism bases on recognizing both the differences and similarities that exist between cultures. It addresses the risk of the creation of an absolute relativism in multiculturalism and postmodernity. 
\section[{v. National Ethos}]{v. National Ethos}\par
The national ethos refers to the creed that arises from the shared traditions and values through which a nation views and relates the past, the present, and forecasts the future. It is an integrating element that defines the identity of a nation and bonds a state into a coherent social group \hyperref[b38]{(Lewin, 2015)}. The national ethos of a country is derived from an array of shared peculiar traditions, values, and beliefs that constitutes a people's predicted image of the future together with their past experiences \hyperref[b38]{(Lewin, 2015)}. Ethos makes a community to integrate and feel a common shared destiny. It acts as a foundation of a society's unique identity as a peculiar social group. At the community level, the integrative ethos is the moral source of the national informal social controls. It makes people committed to society by driving members of a community into a voluntary social order. The national ethos in a nation is among the pivotal factors that unite people into a more cohesive society \hyperref[b23]{(Etzioni, 2009} {\ref cited in Lewin, 2015)}. 
\section[{a. Collective memory in the 19 th Century}]{a. Collective memory in the 19 th Century}\par
The application of national ethos dates back to German romanticism in the late 19 th century by introducing the term 'Zeitgeist' by the philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder that is translated as 'the spirit of the age.' Herder addressed the cultural, political, and ethical climate that states evolve and mature, by the inspiration of Friedrich Hegel's idea of mind and moral fiber \hyperref[b38]{(Lewin, 2015)}. The ideas indicate the presence of a strong association between the ethos and the representations, which is essential to the history of a nation. Features of a community originate from historical stagesa time when the mental maps of the individual's, norms, ideas, and culture originated. These ideas are propounded by sociologist Maurice Halbwachs, the founder of 'collective memory' \hyperref[b21]{(Durkheim, 1912}\hyperref[b28]{: Halbwachs, 1951)}.\par
The collective memory represents a group memory that is shared, constructed by individuals within a selective social group, and passed on to the next generation. Halbwachs explains that no person can remember any coherent fashion outside the contexts of the groups they belong to and that memories are not stored either in one's brain or mind. Still, memories are external recollections that are governed by the group. A community's collective memory is a continuous process of uniting the group basing on ideological perceptions guided by common ethics derived from the told history \hyperref[b21]{(Durkheim, 1912}\hyperref[b28]{: Halbwachs, 1951}). 
\section[{b. Collective memory in the 20 th Century}]{b. Collective memory in the 20 th Century}\par
Scholars in the 20 th Century have contributed critical insights to the concept of collective memory predominantly in its national settings. State ideologists manipulate space and time to make the monopoly in the administrative control to look legitimate. Basing on this attitude, the national history is presented through a nonrealistic unity designed through the elite's mindset of historical awareness. Benedict Anderson, when examining the idea of collective memories in the national context, opines that the nation is seen to be an imagined community. The national identity has symbolic as well as a constructed nature. The idea can reach dispersed populations through communicative media \hyperref[b2]{(Anderson, 1983} cited by  {\ref Kaplan, 2007: 225-244}). As  {\ref Anderson (1983: 133)} succinctly puts it: "The collective identity of a nation as a unique combination of a public that shares mutual values and beliefs lies in its common narratives, that is -in its constructed collective memory and in the united role that its members believe that fate had destined for them in this world."\par
The above statement represents national ethos since it has the foundations of a collective identity incorporated in the sense of a particular duty that a nation is bound to achieve through stipulated common goals that the unity of the people as an entity is ordained to achieve.\par
In Kenya, national ethos is stipulated primarily in the national anthem and promoted through narratives that are in the form of national slogans; they include; 'najivunia kuwa Mkenya' translated as I am proud to be a Kenyan, 'mimi Mkenya daima' -I am forever Kenyan, 'Harambee'pulling together and 'Hakuna Matata Kenya' -Kenya is peaceful. These narratives make every Kenyan to have a duty, and a responsibility, to promote the values and beliefs now and in the future as the slogans are passed on from generation to generation.\par
vi. Identity Identity is a domain that is highly debated in social sciences and humanities, making it to be seen as an 'enigma' that is hard to summarize \hyperref[b24]{(Fearon, 1999)}.  {\ref Hall (1996:598)} brands identity as a 'moveable feast' and looks at the modern identities as fragmented, stressing that 'de-centering' individuals from a specific social-cultural setting will result in a loss of the stable sense of self  {\ref (Hall, 1996:597)}.  {\ref Hall (1994: 392-394)} emphasizes identity as an ongoing procedure, indicating that an identity comprises 'becoming' together with 'being' linked to the past and the future of a person. An identity can be imposed as stipulated in 'Orientatalism' by \hyperref[b55]{Said (1978)}. This is reflected in the imitation of the Westernized identities by the African countries, which narrows down to the case study of this inquiry.\par
According to \hyperref[b63]{Walton \& Cohen (2007)}, social belonging is a human motivation with auspicious outcomes when individuals in society feel social connectedness. Nevertheless,  {\ref Wright (2015: 391)} scrutinizes belonging as a puzzle to denote a place that can be existing despite the lack of a particular site, the diasporic belonging that draws on Yuval-Davis (2011: 367-381), who contends that belonging is a dynamic process with a multi-layer nature.\par
Noble \& Poynting (2010: 490) emphasize movement as the foundation for belonging that happens within the process of migration. The concept of home is multidimensional and it is seen to be a lived relationship or, at times, moves to be tension \hyperref[b39]{(Mallett, 2004)}. Societies should emphasize the need for a sense of belonging and home \hyperref[b22]{(Duyvendak, 2011)} to emphasize the idea by \hyperref[b1]{Ahmed (2000)} concerning a home lacking exclusionary borders. Identity can be described in a tridimensional level as below. 
\section[{a. The tri-dimensionality of Identity}]{a. The tri-dimensionality of Identity}\par
An identity entails different aspects that describe who an individual is; it ranges from the biological sex, demographic makeup, psychological processes to the social positions that are held by individuals \hyperref[b59]{(Schwartz, Luyckx, \& Vignoles, 2011)}. It involves searching for a personal meaning by an individual in relation to their place within the social context. Identity is unchanging for the following cases; ethnicity, and biological gender. It is dynamic in religion, nationality, employment, or psychological gender \hyperref[b49]{(Oostendorp, \& Jones, 2015)}. The nature associated with identity makes people draw from personal goals, values, relations, roles, aspirations, multiple attachments, and group affiliations in a quest to describe themselves \hyperref[b0]{(Adams, 2014)}. Identity is contextual and personal; however, the environment has an influence to shape and develop it. The three primary dimensions of identity are personal, relational, and social identity. However, little empirical research exists to show the relationships these three dimensions have \hyperref[b60]{(Schwartz et al., 2009)}. 
\section[{A. Personal Identity}]{A. Personal Identity}\par
The personal identity puts into consideration an interpersonal concession of a meaningful intelligence of self. It preserves a person's consciousness responsible for their past, present, and future selves. It accounts for people's quest to develop their identity that is situated in social and relational spaces. The personal identity stresses an individual's autonomy, values, personal needs, and aspirations to make them unique \hyperref[b59]{(Schwartz et al., 2011)}. It is a form of ego identity based on the experienced self-coherence and self-continuity that individuals experience in their entire lifespan. It helps to define who the self is \hyperref[b19]{(Crocetti et al., 2013)}. 
\section[{B. Relational Identity}]{B. Relational Identity}\par
Relational identity refers to the intelligence of coherence and continuity that people derive from their interpersonal relations. Individuals use relationships to define who they are since the relationship defines their roles with meaning in their lives. Identity here is the social implications that individuals share and attribute to themselves through roles in society, such as a parent, medical doctor, or friend. Relational identity entails the relationship between the roles of an individual with other people as a result of the roles. People define themselves as interpersonally within the roles that are negotiated and approved by others \hyperref[b59]{(Schwartz et al., 2011)}. 
\section[{C. Social Identity}]{C. Social Identity}\par
Social identity refers to the way individuals manage interpersonal roles within their social groups \hyperref[b15]{(Bornman, 2010)}. Members in social groups share values, beliefs, traditions, norms, attitudes, goals, and rituals that constitute their identity \hyperref[b59]{(Schwartz et al., 2011)}. The shared values, beliefs, and traditions reflect the present, the past, and the future shared identity, which transcends an individual to reflect the national ethos. This is because the shared membership of a group and its salient features that identify one to that group contributes to how people define themselves within a group. The outcome is that individuals cognitively isolate themselves into a group comprising individuals with shared similarities (in-group).\par
On the contrary, they distinguish themselves from others they consider different (the out-group) through isolation and social categorization.\par
Implicatively, ethnicities, tribalism, nepotism, and power struggles that compromise national ethos within the Rift Valley roots here. Intercultural communication should negotiate a coherent sense of identity through sociocultural adjustment that accounts for the active participation of people in the society by equipping them with acculturative experiences such as learning a language in this case Kiswahili, intergroup relationships, and interpersonal relations \hyperref[b17]{(Brown, 2000)}. 
\section[{vii. Cosmopolitanism}]{vii. Cosmopolitanism}\par
The concept 'Cosmopolitan' is derived from a Greek term kosmopolitÄ?"s that means 'citizen of the world.' It is utilized to describe vast views that encompass moral together with socio-political worldviews. Cosmopolitanism refers to the idea that people are, could, or should belong to one community. The community may have different vies that constitutes it as a whole. The diverse views that make this community include; moral standards, political structures, economic practices, and the cultural forms \hyperref[b58]{(Schuett, 2015)}.\par
Within a cosmopolitan society, people from various areas establish relationships that reflect mutual respect despite their different backgrounds in beliefs, politics, ethnicity, or religion. In most instances of cosmopolitanism, the universal society of the world citizens acts as an ideal positive to be cultured; this can be done through learning a universal language that acts as a lingua franca across cultures, the essence for Kiswahili in the Rift Valley. However, a few versions may serve as a ground to deny the presence of outstanding obligations to local systems of political organizations leading to aspects like cultural assimilation, which may become a cause of societal conflicts as the differences that encompass diversity should never be ignored in intercultural communication \hyperref[b58]{(Schuett, 2015)}. 
\section[{viii. Acculturation}]{viii. Acculturation}\par
Individuals who migrate and settle in a cosmopolitan society face the aspect of acculturation that includes undergoing a process of change, either social, cultural, or psychological \hyperref[b10]{(Berry, 2019)}. The transformation brings a balance in two or more cultures. In contrast, an individual adapts to the existing culture in society. These individuals acquire, adopt, and adjust to the emerging cultural environment. As people try to incorporate themselves in prevalent culture through participation in aspects like traditions, they still attach themselves to their initial traditions and cultural values. The effects of acculturation are evident to both the principal and the co-cultures over a long period. However, in selected instances, physical forces make it happen rapidly. More often, acculturation occurs due to social pressure and the continuous exposure of the cocultures to the dominant host culture. A two-way change occurs during the acculturation process. This situation of new cultural connections is common in cosmopolitan regions like the Rift Valley in Kenya. 
\section[{b) Theoretical Review}]{b) Theoretical Review}\par
Four social science theories are reviewed in this study. The models serve the objective of predicting how cultural contact influences the role of a language to determine an identity at different levels of uniqueness. The models are the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (D.M.I.S.) propounded by \hyperref[b9]{Bennett (1993)}, the theory of Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (D.A.D.) propounded by  {\ref Kramer (2013: 123-184)}, the Fourfold Model by  {\ref Berry \& Annis (1994;} {\ref 2001: 382-406}) and the Alternation Model propounded by LaFramboise et al  {\ref (1993)}. 
\section[{i. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (D.M.I.S.)}]{i. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (D.M.I.S.)}\par
The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (D.M.I.S.) propounded by \hyperref[b9]{Bennett (1993)} is a model that explains how individuals in society experience and tackle cultural differences. The model is crucial as it mirrors the situation in the Rift Valley, a cosmopolitan area. The model is a grounded theory that bases on the observations in varied societal settings such as the corporate world together with the academic setups, to explain how to become a competent intercultural communicator \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. The theory is grounded on concepts originating from communication theory and constructivist psychology to develop arguments and positions pertinent to the continuum of cultural difference sensitivity.\par
The model operates on the assumption that "as one's perceptual organization of cultural difference becomes more complex; their experience of culture becomes more sophisticated and the potential for exercising competence in intercultural relations increases" \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. According to the theory, predictions on the efficacy of intercultural communication can be determined when one recognizes the facts about the experience of cultural differences. In application, educational interventions can be made to enable developments along the continuum.\par
The D.M.I.S. model is multifacetedly extending from ethnocentrism, an ideology whereby some individuals in the Rift Valley overlook their culture as "central to reality" to an idea of ethnorelativism. In this scenario, individuals experience their cultures together with other existing cultures as relative to the context. This position shows how the perception of cultural difference is encountered. The model indicates that developmental motion is permanent and unidirectional. Despite this, there might be retreats arising from an ethnocentric position to the other. More so, some ethnocentric matters may not get solutions as societies opt for ethnorelativism \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. However, each person or group possess a predominant experience about cultural difference, which are described by the process below: a. Denial\par
In denial, individuals do not perceive any cultural difference. If perceived, the difference is on broader categorization, such as minorities or foreigners. This aspect results in other co-cultures that tend to suit the categorization, such as the minority culture. At this level, the constructs present for perceiving one's culture are more complex than those for other cultures. In psychological and physical denial and isolation from the cultural difference \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. Such a group of individuals get disinterested and hostilely dismiss themselves from intercultural communication. Individuals at this level find it difficult to be empathic and cannot recognize the humanity of others who are different from them. They tend to use naïve questions concerning other cultures in a disrespectful manner. The situation may be extreme, whereby power may be applied to exploit others without the sensitivity to how they feel on deprivation. 
\section[{b. Defense}]{b. Defense}\par
The defensive mechanism against cultural diversity is the act to look down upon cultural differences using stereotypes. The cultures are seen based on "us" against "them" (Kriegler, 2009: Nasubo \& Luvaga, 2020). In reality, the "us" is superior, while the "them" is the inferior \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. The cultural difference usually threatens individuals at defense. They tend to be critical of other existing cultures and blame cultural differences to be the cause of challenges in society. The power which is always institutionalized is utilized in support of segregation. 
\section[{c. Defense Reversal}]{c. Defense Reversal}\par
This is the alternative to defense as it reverses the polarity of "us" vs. "them." It entails adopting a culture that is romanced, while a selected group is subjected to critics. Traditionally, it can be seen as an internalized oppression to the non-dominant group where culture from the dominant group is valued more than that of the non-dominant group. In moments when the dominant group realizes they belong to the oppressor pole, they at times shift positions and take the cause of the latter with extreme zeal \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. 
\section[{d. Minimization}]{d. Minimization}\par
The stage focuses on the universalization of cultures. The minimization of cultural differences happens when elements of an individual's worldview are seen as universal. There is an assumption that people share specific experiences in all cultures and that certain fundamental beliefs and values transcend existing cultural boundaries. Stress on cross-cultural sameness limits defense, thereby making people tolerate cultural differences. Unfortunately, tolerance does not result in the acknowledgment of substantial differences in cultures \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}.\par
Notably, individuals who shift from the defense to settle in the minimization stage feel they are in an enlightened stage. To them, any discussion of cultural differences is a form of defense. This is due to their initial experience in cultural diversity. The mindset of understanding interculturality basing on similarity makes them overestimate the sensitivity to different people. At this level, people from the dominant group underestimate their ethnic and cultural privilege; their assumption of sameness makes them exaggerate equality in opportunities. Furthermore, members from the dominant group may engage themselves in political correctness to stress similarity. This may be done by utilizing a different language in a political rally to deliberately evoke language barriers to the "them" category of individuals an example of "madoadoa" a Kiswahili word meaning spots \hyperref[b36]{(Kriegler, 2009)}.\par
e. Acceptance An intercultural sensitive person should undergo acceptance, which is an experience to accept cultural differences through seeing their culture as one among complex worldviews. At this level, cultural diversity is essential through curiosity, not threat. Taking the difference entails acknowledging other cultures to be having a different organization of real experiences, which concur with their various cultural assumptions \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. Acceptance is not the literal liking of other cultures or agreeing with them as the cultural variation can be judged negatively; the judgment should be contextually relative. A robust antidote to bigotry recognizes that individuals can be equally complex, but they are different. Acceptance is not only limited to reducing prejudice. It encompasses the boundary of similarities and differences to embrace other groups. Concurrently, people from other cultures gain equal and distinct humanity status. 
\section[{f. Adaptation}]{f. Adaptation}\par
Adapting to cultural difference demands the acceptance of the difference through organizing the world differently, giving it a new orientation. A process of cognitive frame-shift can help people to establish a facsimile worldview that systematizes how they perceive events in a manner that corresponds closely to other cultures \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. The created worldview breeds a counter experience that is appropriate to different cultures. The feeling of appropriateness modifies communication behavior to be authentic and useful in other cultures. The adaptation to intercultural communication in this manner brings about a virtual third culture with peculiar contexts that emerge from the cross-cultural interactions typically evident in a cosmopolitan society. 
\section[{g. Integration}]{g. Integration}\par
Integrating cultural differences is the act of individuals exploring diverse cultural philosophies. At this position, people maintain a complex multicultural identity making them exist in a liminal state that keeps them always ready to be someone different. Such individuals are outsiders to many groups resulting in an ethical ambiguity and the question of identity. This position also pushes individuals to bridge cultural differences and moral commitments. Here, integration is likely to happen among the minority non-dominant groups, those with primary multiculturalism, and among the long-term expatriates \hyperref[b6]{(Bennett, 2018)}. The figure below represents the summary of the model.   
\section[{ii. The Theory of Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (D.A.D.)}]{ii. The Theory of Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (D.A.D.)}\par
The model is propounded by Kramer (2013: 123-184) to help intercultural communicators to understand acculturation at a group level. It helps them to examine the nature of both cultures before they get into contact. The theory relies on two fundamental premises, which both infer that the aspect of identity, communication, meaning, and learning depend on variances. 
\section[{a. The hermeneutics}]{a. The hermeneutics}\par
It is a method of interpretation that happens mostly in wisdom literature. It is more than the interpretive methods used when the immediate comprehension fails that includes the art to understand and communicate. 
\section[{b. The semiotics}]{b. The semiotics}\par
The process that utilizes signs to produce meaning. The meaning can be unintentional, an example of a symptom, or intentional, an example of a word uttered to imply a specific purpose. Signs deal with the material cultures served by knowledge transmitted through human biological senses; auditory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory.\par
The theory holds that total assimilation might lead to a monoculture, which is void of meaning, personal identity, and communication. Kramer uses concepts from other scholars, notably Gebser (2020), who describes the structures of human realization, and Mumford (2018), a cultural historian, to synthesize matters of cultural differences and expressions.\par
The theory establishes three communication styles (symbolic, idolic, or signalic) that explain cultural differences. These communication styles reflect a weakness in comprehending the dyadic meaning between the symbolic and idolic communication since both reflect a complex sense than the sign. Also, other communication styles are seen as universal in academics (Aggressive, passive, and assertive) that make the styles used by  {\ref Kramer (2013: 123-184)} to pose a semantical confusion. Despite the critics above, the theory stands out that there is no single communication mode that is inherently superior and that there is no final solution suggested to intercultural conflicts. Instead, Kramer integrates his theory (D.A.D.) to churning cultural theory and cultural fusion theory to understand changes in culture as a result of acculturation in a concept he terms "co-evolution."\par
The idea of co-evolution reflects how cultures evolve due to new contacts, a typical scenario in a cosmopolitan region.  {\ref Kramer (2013: 123-184}) uses the qualities of out-vectors to address how former and new cultures come into contact. The theory explains that differences are unavoidable through the phrase 'interaction potential' that restricts the variance in acculturation depending on the status of an individual entering the host culture. Furthermore, the theory encapsulates the significance of how accessible a host culture is to the newcomer, the ease of the newcomer to interact and get used to the host, and the outcome of such an interaction. The theory makes coping mechanisms to be simple among the co-cultures in a new cultural context.\par
iii. The Fourfold Model  {\ref (Berry \& Annis 1994;} The Fourfold theory is a bilinear theory that classifies acculturation techniques in two dimensions. First, it entails the retention or rejection of the minority or native culture by an individual-the second-dimension deals with adopting or rejecting the host culture or dominant group. The two dimensions above bring forth four acculturation strategies. 
\section[{a. Assimilation}]{a. Assimilation}\par
This occurs when people from the co-cultures adopt the cultural norms of the host culture at the expense of their culture. Governments sometimes coerce it. It is an acculturation strategy that is adopted in a society that promotes a homogenous culture. 
\section[{b. Separation}]{b. Separation}\par
It occurs when people from the co-cultures reject the host culture and prefers to preserve their original culture. It is always enabled by immigration into ethnic regions. 
\section[{c. Integration}]{c. Integration}\par
This occurs when people from the co-cultures accept the cultural norms of the host culture but still maintains their original culture. Integration results in biculturalism. This culture is usually endorsed in segregationist societies; such societies separate people into ethnic or religious groups, among other social groupings.\par
There is a correlation between integration as a technique of acculturation by  {\ref Berry \& Annis (1994} and integration as a process of handling cultural differences by \hyperref[b9]{Bennett (1993)}. A binding factor is that, integration makes people maintain a complex multicultural identity making them exist in a liminal state that keeps them ready to accept the differences and cope with them. This position also pushes individuals to bridge cultural differences within a society. 
\section[{d. Marginalization}]{d. Marginalization}\par
It always happens after people from the cocultures reject their culture and from the dominant host. Societies promote the marginalization strategy with the cultural exclusion mode of life.\par
The theory suggests that, in a multiculturalist society, many cultures are appreciated and accepted; therefore, people are urged to adopt the integrationist acculturation approach. The model is orthodoxy for testing acculturation in psychology. It has been utilized to determine acculturation in some different ethnicities in different countries. For instance, it has been used to study ethnic repatriates from the Soviet Union in Germany, Finland, and Israel (Jasinskaja-Lahti, Liebkind, Horenczyk \& Schmitz, 2003: 79-97).\par
Moreover, the model was used to guide Berry et al.,  {\ref (2006)} research for the International Comparative Study of the Ethnocultural Youth (ICSEY). The researchers examined the four acculturation alignments, ethnic and national identity, the ethnic and national language aptitude, the use of the national language, the ethnic together with the national peer contacts, and finally, the family relationships in a priori cluster and factor analyses \hyperref[b62]{(Vadher, 2009)}.\par
The studies revealed an ethnic orientation made of separation, family obligation, and ethnic identity. The study also revealed another factor namely the national orientation; where the national identity and assimilation score seems similar. The third is the integration orientation that both marginalization integration loads the same factor. Finally, ethnic behaviors present ethnic language aptitude and contact with regional peers loaded onto the same factor positively, contrary to the national language aptitude and the connection with national peers that reflected negatively \hyperref[b62]{(Vadher, 2009}). 
\section[{e. Criticism to Berry's Model}]{e. Criticism to Berry's Model}\par
The theory neatly binds the cultural domains and practices used to determine acculturation in terms of the ones associated with either regional culture or national culture, hence the model is questionable in interpreting daily life experiences. Furthermore, the theory fails to specify the traditions and social activities adopted and maintained by individuals in the cocultures  {\ref (Boski, 2008: 142-153)}.\par
The Fourfold theory by  {\ref Berry \& Annis (1994;} 382-406) treats the four orientations of acculturation as fixed and static, and base on rational options made by individuals, the assertion is unrealistic \hyperref[b13]{(Bhatia \& Ram, 2009} {\ref : 140-149: Weinreich, 2009: 124-139)}. This also is a concern that is addressed by Teresa LaFramboise et al (1993) by developing the Alternation Model that addresses acculturation experiences among ethnic minorities within a dominant culture. Through alternation, an individual has the freedom to move back and forth between their culture and that of their host depending on the context (LaFromboise et al., 1993). The Alternation Model is ideal in application to the context of a cosmopolitan environment, as discussed forth. 
\section[{iv. Alternation Model of Second-Culture Acquisition}]{iv. Alternation Model of Second-Culture Acquisition}\par
The Alternation Model propounded by LaFramboise, Coleman, \& Gerton (1993) assumes that individuals can know and understand two diverse cultures. Individuals can alter their behavior and fit in a selected social context. Ogbu \& Matute-Bianchi (1986: 89) admit that a person can belong to two cultures and use two diverse languages for diverse purposes by alternating behavior depending on the situation. The Alternation theory assumes that an individual can feel a sense of belonging to two cultures and not compromise their cultural identity. This is a form of biculturalism that allows dual approaches to social behavior appropriate in different societal situations \hyperref[b48]{(Ogbu \& Matute-Bianchi, 1986)}.\par
The Alternation theory is an additive theory of acquiring cultures parallel to code-switching theories that depend on signaling diverse contextual and social relations through language (Saville-Troike, 1981). This hypothesis challenges the acculturation strategy of assimilation suggested in the Fourfold theory by  {\ref Berry \& Annis (1994;} 382-406) since people who can alternate their behavior to suit two cultures are less anxious as compared to the ones assimilating or going through the acculturation process.\par
The Alternation Model differs from the idea of assimilation and acculturation in two substantial ways. First, the model posits an orthogonal and bicultural relation between a person's original culture and the second culture rather than promoting a linear, unidirectional relationship suggested by assimilation. In essence, the model means that an individual can maintain a positive relationship with both cultures without necessarily choosing between them.\par
Secondly, the Alternation Model ignores the hierarchical relationships between the two cultures. This framework allows individuals in a cosmopolitan environment to attach equal status to both cultures, despite whether they value them equally \hyperref[b37]{(LaFromboise et al., 1993)}. Individuals have the freedom to decide the degree to which they will affiliate themselves with their original culture and the second culture. To put the theory into application, LaFromboise et al., (1993) examine the dual characteristics among the Asian Indians to support the assumption above. Although individuals under study depicted a higher proficiency to read and speak English, they all preferred to think using the Indian logic. The majority of them showed a preference for the Indian delicacy and dress code while in India but the American cuisine and dress while in America. This similar behavior occurs among the Pan African students who prefer local foods and attires in Cameroon but swiftly embark on the foods and attires in their respective countries. It is clear evidence of how the Alternation theory is adequate for diverse societies. 
\section[{a. The significant Strength of the Alternation Model}]{a. The significant Strength of the Alternation Model}\par
The Alternation Model focuses on both cognitive and affective procedures that allow individuals in a diverse environment to endure the adverse effects of acculturative stress. The theory also examines the role that individuals have in selecting how to interact with the culture they get in contact with and their original culture \hyperref[b37]{(LaFromboise et al., 1993)}. The model opens the gap of bidirectional effects of cultural connection that researchers should put under study to understand the impacts that individuals from both cultures have on one another. 
\section[{c) Empirical Review}]{c) Empirical Review}\par
In this section, the study applies the available pieces of evidence to contribute to the knowledge that is practical to the study. The evidence helps the researcher to systematically answer the questions of interest and determine whether the facts support the research hypothesis or not.\par
Nussbaum (2011) describes interculturalism to be involving the fact of recognizing human needs that are common across the cultures (areas of correspondence across cultures) and those of dissonance (that establish areas of differences) and critical discourse within cultures. Interculturalists discard the idea of identity politics that members of a group are the only ones with an understanding of the perspectives of that group. Nussbaum sees interculturalism as a different aspect from multiculturalism, noting out that many several other humanities scholars prefer interculturalism at the expense of multiculturalism since they associate the latter with identity politics and relativism \hyperref[b47]{(Nussbaum, 2011)}. \hyperref[b52]{Rattansi (2011)} looks at biculturalism as a more productive way than traditional multiculturalism as it allows different ethnic groups to co-exist. The peaceful co-existence is practical in an atmosphere that promotes civility and inter-ethnic understanding. This idea is applicable in cosmopolitan areas in the case of the Rift Valley in Kenya. The author quotes an example of interculturalist projects in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and how they are practical in demonstrating constructive projections for promoting multi-ethnic civility \hyperref[b52]{(Rattansi, 2011)}. The author utilizes research to outline the new interpretation of the global history showing that concepts of tolerance are not supposed to be restricted only to the West. The so-called 'unique western cultural success should be termed as a Eurasian achievement. The author offers an elaborate interculturalist perspective of global history that undermines the ideas of a clash of civilizations.\par
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted a Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005 that promotes interculturality. Notably, in all German Universities, there is a section of intercultural competence in social work programs. It helps students to be able to communicate with others from diverse cultural backgrounds, acquire knowledge of the backgrounds of various cultural groups, understand the existing stereotypes and prejudices that involves certain cultural groups \hyperref[b25]{(Ferri, 2005)}.\par
Wise (2010) discusses identity issues and matters of belonging for the migrants, together with the locals in the Sydney suburb. The analysis is critical as it questions the essence of living with the 'difference' on a quotidian level. According to  {\ref Hall (2002: 458-459)}, those individuals that inhabit a diasporic identity learn to live and cope with it, thereby speaking from the aspect of the difference. The loss of identity defines the diasporic experience, making migrant identities to be seen beyond ethnicity, be individualized, and dynamic until it cannot be included within the static multiculturalism to focus on the co-existing community that is mutually exclusive. \hyperref[b47]{Nussbaum (2011)} and Rattansi (2011) fails to acknowledge biculturalism as a stepping stone to multiculturalism, thereby addressing the two concepts as independent entities, biculturalism and multiculturalism are inseparable concepts. Also, it is essential to question the static identity concepts, thereby acknowledge the hybridity of how migrants experience and understand the idea of self \hyperref[b3]{(Ang, 2009)}. 
\section[{d) The Status of Kiswahili in the Rift Valley}]{d) The Status of Kiswahili in the Rift Valley}\par
Kiswahili is mostly referred to as the first language of the people of Swahili origin who inhabit the East African Coast that stretches from Tanzania, Kenya and Somalia. Its origin dates back to 1711, where the coastal traders from the Arab countries settled at the coastal towns of East Africa. The ancient name of this language is known as the Kingozi, and the earliest document in Kiswahili Language was done in Kilwa. As explained by \hyperref[b45]{Nesbitt (2018)} the language is predominantly spoken in east African countries. In Kenya, Kiswahili was first used as a lingua franca by the East African coast fishermen and the Oman clove farmers. Reaching the 20th Century, it was widely accepted to play the role of national development.\par
Among critical factors that led to the development of Kiswahili in Kenya include maritime trade, the cultural complex of the Bantus, which has an affinity to Kiswahili, cultural practices of the Swahili people, activities by the Christian missionaries, mass media, economic and social changes, games and sports, the school system and the national politics among others \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}.\par
The status of Kiswahili in the Rift Valley is examined based on how the language is used in general in areas like written documents before and after independence \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}. This section of the research aims at evaluating the status of Kiswahili in the Rift Valley based on parameters like the education system, legal documentation, language policies, challenges, and the successes accorded to the language within the region. 
\section[{i. Kiswahili in Policy Documents}]{i. Kiswahili in Policy Documents}\par
This section examines the documentation of Kiswahili in Kenya before and after independence by comparing it with English and other mother tongues within the Rift Valley. It focuses on two periods: 
\section[{a. The Colonial Period}]{a. The Colonial Period}\par
The European colonial masters made Kiswahili to be used in the education system as evident from the missionary's activities in Kenya. The language was used to promote education and trade based on the colonial language policy in East Africa. However, according to \hyperref[b61]{Timammy \& Oduor (2016)}, the period between 1940 and 1963, saw the dwindling fortunes of Kiswahili through the Beecher Report  {\ref (1942)}, which emphasized the teaching of vernacular, at the same time replacing Kiswahili with English a colonial lingua franca. The tactic above is evidence of the divide and rule strategy adopted by the colonialists since they viewed Kiswahili as a unifying factor to all Kenyans in socio-politics. As such, Kiswahili could only remain as a medium of instruction in areas where natives, mainly from the coastal regions of Kenya, spoke it as mother tongue thereby making the Rift Valley to promote other indigenous languages. Fortunately, it was hard to teach vernacular within the Rift Valley due to its diverse nature. By 1957, English was promoted as a medium of instruction by the Nairobi Special Centre, making Kiswahili face a blow as a medium of instruction in every region of the country \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}. 
\section[{b. The Post-colonial Period}]{b. The Post-colonial Period}\par
The discussions which began at the turn of the century about the media of instruction for Africans and the comparative merits of Kiswahili against English continue to the present day. It is, therefore, significant to evaluate various steps and commissions set to check on the progress of languages within the country after independence \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}. 
\section[{ii. The Ominde Commission of 1964}]{ii. The Ominde Commission of 1964}\par
The Commission recommended the teaching of Kiswahili as a compulsory lesson in primary school since it would unite citizens. Also, it supported the training of Kiswahili teachers during holiday seasons. Moreover, the Commission saw it necessary to have a Department of Kiswahili at the University College of Nairobi, currently (University of Nairobi). It finally saw it essential to use English as a medium of instruction in schools \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}.\par
iii 
\section[{. The Gachathi Report of 1975}]{. The Gachathi Report of 1975}\par
It was formed to check on more specific goals suitable for the Kenyan education system. The Commission tried to accord Kiswahili an elevated role in the Kenyan education system. The report gave provisions for Kiswahili to be taught and examined as an optional subject in secondary schools \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}. 
\section[{iv. The Mackay Commission of 1981}]{iv. The Mackay Commission of 1981}\par
Kiswahili was to be an examinable subject taught in both primary and secondary schools in Kenya. It is recommendable as the implementation was evident when the 8-4-4 system of education was established in Kenya in 1985 \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}. The Mackay Report, further proposed that Kiswahili be made a compulsory subject at Moi University, Kenya's second university located within the Rift Valley. Unfortunately, this did not happen \hyperref[b61]{(Timammy \& Oduor, 2016)}. The majority of universities in Kenya use English as a medium of communication, and Kiswahili a subject to those who pursue it as a course. The above are the past developments that determine the status of Kiswahili in Kenya. 
\section[{v. Constitution of Kenya 2010}]{v. Constitution of Kenya 2010}\par
According to the Kenyan Constitution (2010) Chapter 2 article 7: Official Law Reports of the Republic of Kenya (2010: 22): 1) Kiswahili is the national language of the Republic of Kenya.\par
2) The official languages of the Republic are Kiswahili and English.\par
3) The state shalla) Promote and protect the diversity of language of the people of Kenya; and b) Promote the development and use of indigenous languages in Kenya. Here, Kiswahili acquires a higher probability of growing in all regions of the country since the Kenyan Constitution perceives it as; ? An official language ? National language and ? An indigenous language \hyperref[b34]{(Kenya, 2013)}.\par
The languages of Kenya Bill focus on Kiswahili as an indigenous language together with its dialects. It works out to develop an equal measure of the use of Kiswahili as an official language within every region of the country. The bill enhances learning of Kiswahili since it is a symbol of national unity, a center for cultural literacy, and a means of cohesion (Timammy \& Oduor, 2016: National Cohesion Integrated Commission, 2013). Also, the bill proposes a broader use of Kiswahili in trade, education, and media. On the other hand, the Languages of Kenya Policy sees Kiswahili as a communication tool that facilitates access to knowledge and public facilities within Kenya. This is evident in its use within schools and media houses present within every region of the country (Timammy \& Oduor, 2016). 
\section[{vi. Volatility in the Rift Valley}]{vi. Volatility in the Rift Valley}\par
Ethnic discord has been part of a cocktail of grievances that explains the persistence of tensions mostly triggered during election cycles in the Rift Valley of Kenya. Tellingly, deadly conflicts have marred three out of the five elections held in Kenya since the introduction of multi-party democracy in 1992. The Rift Valley is always affected while 'Nakuru' is termed as the hotspot of this ethnic volatility (Kreiegler \& Waki Commision, 2009). The Independent Review Committee (IREC) was formed under the Inquiry Commission Act (Cap. 102). It was gazetted under the Kenya Gazette of March 14 th, 2008, with a primary mandate to examine the 2007 elections, which was the most dreaded election in Kenya affecting the Rift Valley with ethnic-oriented conflicts. 
\section[{vii. The Kriegler and Waki report of 2007}]{vii. The Kriegler and Waki report of 2007}\par
According to the Kreiegler \& Waki Commision (2009), election violence in the Rift Valley covered in the Commission of Inquiry into the Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) was caused by; conflict over land, the desire to move away "foreigners" referenced to the Kikuyu, Luo, Kisii and other non-Kalenjin communities that had established permanent residence within the Rift Valley. These "other" communities were derogatorily referred to as "madoadoa" to mean spots amidst the dominant group. Another reason for ethnic discord is ethnic cleaning that happened in Koibatek, the continuation of a history of ethnic conflicts evident in Molo and ethnic loyalty to certain political camps among others. The commission recommends the creation of a modern code of conduct that brings an ethnic balance. Among them is the use of Kiswahili as an intercultural lingua franca in the Rift Valley.\par
In conclusion, this chapter reviews the literature. It explores various concepts that develop the baseline for this study. The chapter explores four theories and applies empirical studies discussed explicitly. Finally, since Kiswahili reinforces national ethos as a national language, the chapter examines its status in policy documents and how it is applied in academics and media to showcase its functionality as a symbol of national unity within the Rift Valley and a cultural linkage for communities living within the region. 
\section[{Chapter Three}]{Chapter Three}\par
III. 
\section[{Methodology}]{Methodology}\par
This chapter focuses on the overall research methodology applicable to this study. It covers the research design, population and sampling, sampling techniques, data collection methods, research instruments and their administration, quality criteria, methods of data analysis, and the ethical considerations to this research. 
\section[{a) Research Design}]{a) Research Design}\par
This survey incorporates a triangulation approach of inquiry to understand the lived experiences, behaviors, emotions, and meanings of using a crossculture language (Kiswahili) for intercultural communication among sub-set cultures within a cosmopolitan area \hyperref[b26]{(Flick, 2018)}. The triangulation design helps to validate data through a careful crossverification of multiple data collection methods and theories on the topic. The approach allows the researcher to combine several research methods while dealing with a single phenomenon, such as literal replication and theoretical replication. The research applies three basic types of triangulation which are: first, data triangulation, where a variety of information sources such as observations and interviews are utilised \hyperref[b4]{(Archibald, 2016)}. Second, is theory triangulation, whereby multiple perspectives are used to interpret outcomes of this study. Third is methodological triangulation, where qualitative and quantitative methods are combined at the time of data collection, data analysis, and reporting. 
\section[{b) Population and sampling}]{b) Population and sampling}\par
A diverse population and sample size are used for data collection. The participants belong to one of the following categories:\par
? Individuals who have either lived or worked in a multicultural area under investigation. ? Persons who have a perceived multi-lingual personhood/identity. ? Independent movers who have left their original region/country following a personal call (personal motivation). ? Individuals who are fluent in English and a transborder language (Kiswahili). Upon meeting the above selection criteria, the study focuses on twenty \hyperref[b19]{(20)} immigrant populations in the Rift Valley, ten \hyperref[b9]{(10)} natives representing the dominant culture, fifteen \hyperref[b14]{(15)} employees working in a multicultural environment, and five (5) individuals from  
\section[{c) Sampling Techniques}]{c) Sampling Techniques}\par
The study employs a purposive sampling to select twenty-five (25) people who meet critical selection criteria as listed above and are therefore relevant to the research inquiry. These twenty-five \hyperref[b24]{(25)} people are the twenty \hyperref[b19]{(20)} immigrants into the Rift Valley and the five (5) executives from private and state firms within the Rift Valley region. Also, a random sampling procedure is applied to select the other twenty-five (25) people to limit bias. 
\section[{d) Methods of Data Collection}]{d) Methods of Data Collection}\par
The data is collected through the interviews using structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with participants. Also, the study depends on personal experiences and in-context observations in data collection. Ontologically, the research is approached from a constructivist perspective that accommodates the relevance of context. 
\section[{e) Research Instruments}]{e) Research Instruments}\par
Data collection depends on in-depth structured and semi-structured interviews by the use of questionnaires. The questionnaire contains multiplechoice questions, open-ended questions, and attitude scales. 
\section[{f) The Administration and Collection of Research Instruments}]{f) The Administration and Collection of Research Instruments}\par
To administer the questionnaires, they are handed to respondents personally; in case of limited contact with the respondents, notably the snowballed respondents, they receive the questionnaires by email. The interviews take a format that covers a three-phase interview process; the past, present, and reflections, which capture significant aspects of national ethos. This facilitates a narrative analysis of the data.\par
More so, sound-recording assists in leveraging the understanding of the language in use in various contexts like the market, church, and social gatherings. Voices are recorded and transcribed to help in the research. Finally, observation is used to understand the lived experiences and realities within the context of the study.\par
Three sets of questions are submitted at some interval from one another to allow respondents to explore their thoughts iteratively. In agreement with the scope of this research and its hermeneutic nature, participants are encouraged to explore their multicultural experiences from whatever angle they may wish to do so. It helps to showcase multiculturalism, credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability that offer guidance to the research. 
\section[{g) Validity and Reliability Criteria}]{g) Validity and Reliability Criteria}\par
The study obeys the following facets of quality: the survey uses the Cronbach's alpha in assessing the reliability in a set of the tested items of research \hyperref[b14]{(Bonett \& Wright, 2015)}. The aspect of transferability is under consideration since the study offers an in-depth description, which allow readers to apply it when dealing with the role of any language in enhancing intercultural communication. The research is in a position to address the question of context-relevance and is unique.\par
Moreover, the study is dependable, depicting the quality and offers room for a dependability audit. The study describes aspects of trustworthiness by utilizing authentic data survey techniques and limit the researcher's imaginations to portray the real situation in a cosmopolitan environment that is open to confirmation. This study is very accessible for any conformability audit and backchecks \hyperref[b41]{(Mertens, 2014)}. The investigation is credible since it follows the required data collection criteria, sampling, and data analysis. As such, the study gathers data, analyse the information, and draw reliable conclusions basing on the data outcome. 
\section[{h) Data Analysis}]{h) Data Analysis}\par
The study uses a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and the narrative analytical approach, considering that the emphasis of this research is on how people make sense of their intercultural experiences when utilizing a common language. Narratives are coded using a twofold system in relation to available scholarly theoretical taxonomy. Participants' profiles are also considered to facilitate a thematic analysis of the descriptions, emerging themes, and sub-themes summarized in tables (Bujang, Sa'at, \& Bakar, 2018). 
\section[{i) Ethical Considerations}]{i) Ethical Considerations}\par
The respondents are given the consent form, which they sign to ascertain their agreement to participate in the study. Also, their confidentiality is ensured since none of their responses is shared with individuals outside the scope of this research. An interview guide is used, which act as a framework for the discussion and ensures consistency while gathering data from respondents. Moreover, a cover letter is sent to all the executives to request participation in the research. All the objectives of the study are highlighted in the letter. Therefore, an appointment is booked for the day when the investigation was to be conducted. The above confirms the ethical considerations were made in this research. The three triangulation techniques aforementioned in the paper are sufficient for the study as they effectively enable the collection of data in the survey \hyperref[b4]{(Archibald, 2016)}. 
\section[{j) Applicable Theories}]{j) Applicable Theories}\par
The research is underpinned by four social science theories that are reviewed to predict the chances of acculturation due to diverse interactions in a cosmopolitan environment. Having presented the research design, the population and sampling, sampling techniques, data collection methods, research instruments and how they are administered, quality criteria, methods of data analysis, ethical considerations to research, and applicable theories mentioned, the next chapter focuses on data presentation and analysis. 
\section[{Chapter Four}]{Chapter Four}\par
IV. 
\section[{Data Presentation and Analysis}]{Data Presentation and Analysis}\par
This chapter presents the study's results through data presentation from the questionnaire, observations, and audio transcriptions in relation to the research questions and hypotheses. The data are tabulated, presented, interpreted and analyzed focusing on the valid percentages to answer the research questions. 
\section[{a) Demographic Statistics}]{a) Demographic Statistics}\par
The demographic data assists the researcher to generate new dimensions and initiatives to data analysis, they add a qualitative value to the study since they are measurable characteristics that help in achieving the set objectives of research. The section focuses on the personal information of the respondents for the study. It presents their gender, age category, place of birth, duration of their stay within the Rift Valley and their Kiswahili competence.\par
i. Gender Forty-seven (47) respondents answered the question on gender, describing themselves as either male or female. However, it is important to note that individuals who neither identified themselves as 'male' nor 'female' were allowed to categorize themselves under the 'others' option.\par
Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.1 below illustrates the number of respondents who answered the gender question describing themselves as either male, female or other. It indicates the frequency for each gender and the cumulative percentage. The overall turnout level of the study shows that more females responded to the study (54.3\%) as compared to males (45.7\%).\par
ii 
\section[{. Age Distribution of Respondents}]{. Age Distribution of Respondents}\par
The table below indicates that most of the respondents (50\%) belong to the age bracket 25 -30.\par
Furthermore, a tie of 21.7\% belongs in the age bracket 18 -25 and 30 -35, respectively. These three age brackets comprised the majority of the respondents for the survey as represented in table 4.2 below. iii. Birthplace The question of birthplace aims at establishing the historical backgrounds of the respondents to the study, which in turn reflects on how they identify themselves while in the region. Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.3 below illustrates the numeric and percentage distribution of respondents in relation to their place of birth. The majority of the respondents (69.6\%) indicated that their parents were born in the Rift Valley of Kenya. The remaining 30.4\% were born outside the region. This section provides a summary of the data, it quantitatively describes and summarises features from the information collected from the respondents to inform the results of the research. 
\section[{i. Categorization of Kiswahili}]{i. Categorization of Kiswahili}\par
It was significant to understand the rate at which respondents perceive Kiswahili as their first language. This tests the conversant level of Kiswahili that citizens within the Rift Valley of Kenya have. According to the data in the table above, majority of the respondents (67.4\%) reported that Kiswahili is their first language. The remaining 32.6\% reported a different language other than Kiswahili to be their first language. 
\section[{ii. Other Languages that Respondents Speak}]{ii. Other Languages that Respondents Speak}\par
Understanding other languages that people within the Rift Valley of Kenya speak helps to determine the dominant culture (s) within the region. Respondents listed other languages that they speak apart from Kiswahili, as indicated in the table below. In Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.7 above, majority of the respondents indicated that they also speak Nandi (30.4\%), Marakwet (26. 1\%), Sabaot (23.9\%), Kipsigis (13\%), Keiyo (4.3 \%) and Tugen (2.2 \%). These are some of the languages that form the Kalenjin language group, which is the dominant culture within the Rift Valley of Kenya. 
\section[{iii. The Frequency of Kiswahili Use}]{iii. The Frequency of Kiswahili Use}\par
Respondents were to give the frequency of Kiswahili speaking to show the rate at which the language is put in practice, which helps to usher the contextualization of Kiswahili in the next section. For the respondents who speak Kiswahili as their first language, a majority of (50\%) indicated that they speak it often, and another 39.1\% reported to speak it very often. Only 10.9\% reported as rarely speaking the language. 
\section[{c) Contextualization of Kiswahili use within the Rift Valley of Kenya}]{c) Contextualization of Kiswahili use within the Rift Valley of Kenya}\par
This section presents data on the context at which Kiswahili is used within the Rift Valley by focusing on the formal and informal contexts. 
\section[{i. The Formal use of Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya}]{i. The Formal use of Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya}\par
The formal use of Kiswahili entails examining the use of Kiswahili in official contexts. The study focused on the use of Kiswahili in workplaces as well as its use in schools within the Rift Valley of  {\ref Kenya.} In the workplace/school, most of the respondents (67.4\%) reported speaking Kiswahili, while 30.4\% reported to speak English and the other 2.2\% speaking mother tongue, as illustrated in the table below. v. The Use of Kiswahili Among Peers The assessment of the use of Kiswahili among peers focused on how people from various groups that share peculiar characteristics that make them feel equal to each other use the language. The main focus was on people of the same age group and people sharing an equal status in society.\par
A majority of (73.9\%) reported speaking Kiswahili when with friends, compared to the minority15.2\% who spoke English. The remaining 4.3\% reported speaking mother tongue when with friends. In summary, the results in this section indicate that most of the respondents in the Rift Valley of Kenya use Kiswahili as their main communication language both formally and informally. The formal settings herein include school and workplace. Also, the results indicate that Kiswahili is commonly used for official communication within the Rift Valley of Kenya, more than English, which is also one of Kenya's official language as stipulated in the constitution. The informal settings entail the market places, with friends, and other social gatherings. 
\section[{d) Kiswahili and Acculturation Strategies}]{d) Kiswahili and Acculturation Strategies}\par
Responses from the respondents were evaluated based on the outcome that the table below predicts to determine a strategy guided by respondents.  
\section[{i. The Assimilation Influence of the Dominant Language within the Rift Valley of Kenya}]{i. The Assimilation Influence of the Dominant Language within the Rift Valley of Kenya}\par
To determine whether people from the cocultures adopt the cultural norms of the host culture at the expense of their culture to develop a homogenous culture, the respondents were asked to give their views on whether it was important for them to speak fluent Kiswahili rather than the dominant mother tongue within the Rift Valley of Kenya and their outcomes recorded in the table below. The majority of the respondents (47.4\%) strongly agreed that was important to speak fluent Kiswahili rather than the dominant mother tongue within the Rift Valley of Kenya, 13.2\% agreed that it was important. In comparison 23.7\% disagreed and 15.8\% were neutral on the same. According to \hyperref[b54]{Rudmin \& Ahmadzadeh (2001)}, the rejection of both cultures results in 'multiculturalism' rather than 'marginalization.' 
\section[{ii. The Separation Influence of Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya}]{ii. The Separation Influence of Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya}\par
To determine whether the immigration of the people from the co-cultures into the Rift Valley of Kenya can result in the rejection of the host culture, respondents gave their opinions on the importance of speaking fluently the dominant language than Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya. The majority of the respondents (41.7\%) were neutral on a personal level that they need to speak fluent dominant mother tongue than Kiswahili, 30.6\% strongly agreed while the remaining 11.1\% disagreed.\par
iii 
\section[{. The Integration Influence of Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya}]{. The Integration Influence of Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya}\par
Integration occurs when people from the cocultures accept the cultural norms and language of the host culture but still maintain their original culture (language) to bring about biculturalism. Respondents were to give their views on speaking fluent Kiswahili and other ethnic languages within the Rift Valley. The outcome is in Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.17 below. Most of the respondents (66.7\%) strongly agreed that it was important to be fluent in both Kiswahili and other ethnic languages in the Rift Valley, 23.8\% agreed on the same, and 9.5\% were neutral. 
\section[{iv. Marginalization within the Rift Valley of Kenya}]{iv. Marginalization within the Rift Valley of Kenya}\par
Marginalization happens after people from the co-cultures reject their culture (language) and that from the dominant host. Respondents were asked to react on whether it is not important to speak fluent Kiswahili or any mother tongue in the Rift Valley of Kenya. The table below illustrates their responses. On the marginalization influence of Kiswahili within the Rift Valley of Kenya, (37.8\%) strongly disagreed that it is not important to speak both fluent Kiswahili or any mother tongue, 16.2\% disagreed, 18.9\% strongly agreed while 16.2\% were neutral on the same. 
\section[{e) Adverse Social Impacts of Language Barriers}]{e) Adverse Social Impacts of Language Barriers}\par
The section focuses on the possible negative impacts that language barrier can cause, necessitating the use of a cross-cultural language which is Kiswahili. 
\section[{i. Discrimination}]{i. Discrimination}\par
The language barrier can be a source of social discrimination and other vices in society. The study, therefore, sought to explore how the language barrier affects residents of the Rift Valley, and the results are as shown in the table below. Majority of the residents (63\%) reported that sometimes they got ignored because of their language inadequacy. Another 30\% reported that they never got ignored, while a further 6.5\% reported that they get ignored very often. 
\section[{ii. Intimidation}]{ii. Intimidation}\par
Language differences can be an outcome of different forms of intimidation, including threats, abuse, and stereotypes. This was necessary to be tested and the outcomes are represented in table 4.20 below. As the table above indicates, the majority of the respondents (45.7\%) reported that they sometimes got bullied because of their linguistic background. Another 41.3\% reported that they never get bullied because of their language background, while 13\% reported that they very often get bullied because of their different language background. 
\section[{iii. Social Exclusion}]{iii. Social Exclusion}\par
This strand tests incidences of people being denied the acquisition of property and opportunities available within the Rift Valley of Kenya due to language differences. The results are in the table below. A major i ty of (52.2\%) respondents reported that they sometimes felt ignored and excluded because of their different language background whereas 34.8\% reported that they never have such an experience, 13\% reported experiencing the same very often. 
\section[{iv. Biased Acceptance}]{iv. Biased Acceptance}\par
Acceptance is an experience to accept cultural differences through seeing diversity from complex worldviews. Acceptance is not the literal liking of other cultures or agreeing with them. Cultural variation can be judged negatively to motivate prejudice resulting from the language difference. Respondents were to give their views of whether they feel a biased acceptance due to their language variations. The outcomes are shown in table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.22 below. Most of the respondents (54.4\%) as indicated in the table above reported that they felt accepted in the Rift Valley of Kenya despite their language background, while 28\%.3 reported that their language background was sometimes a source of their biased acceptance and 17.4\% reported that the feeling was very often. 
\section[{v. Name-calling at Formal Institutions}]{v. Name-calling at Formal Institutions}\par
Diverse communities are prone to face stereotypic mentalities from individuals who are not ready to accept the difference that exists. The stereotypes can be linked to a difference in language or cultural norms, among other things. Respondents had to give their views on whether they have experienced stereotypes either in formal or informal settings as represented in tables 4. \hyperref[b22]{23}  In table 4.23, (50\%) of the respondents reported that they never got called names or teased at school or workplace because of their language background. Another 41.3\% reported that it often happened, while 8.7\% reported very often. 
\section[{vi. Name-calling Outside Formal Institutions}]{vi. Name-calling Outside Formal Institutions}\par
The respondents (47.8\%) also reported that sometimes, they are stereotyped or teased outside the school or workplace because of their language background. In comparison, another 45.7\% reported that they never got teased or called names. Also, 6.5\% reported that they got teased and called names very often. In summary, the results indicate that language background can sometimes be a major source of social discrimination in both the formal and informal setting. 
\section[{f) Theory Triangulation}]{f) Theory Triangulation}\par
The four theories reviewed in chapter two are tested to determine which one is the most applicable for this study.\par
According to the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) propounded by \hyperref[b9]{Bennett (1993)}, 54.4\% of the respondents, as indicated in Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.22 reported that they do not feel accepted in the Rift Valley just because of their language background representing the first stage of denial. Also, the highest of 47.8\% admitted to having undergone the defense stage of DMIS through experiencing societal stereotypes Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.24. However, despite the fact that most of the respondents (66.7\%) strongly agreed that it was important to be integrated into the new society Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.17, they remained outsiders to the groups since their identity is questioned. This disqualifies the theory, paving the way for the trial of the theory Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (DAD) by  {\ref Kramer (2013: 123-184)}.\par
In tables 4.15 and 4.25, the variable of assimilation is tested via the need to speak Kiswahili fluently rather than the mother tongue and adapting to new cultures completely forgetting original cultures, respectively. Therefore, 47.4\% strongly agreed with assimilation in table 4. \hyperref[b14]{15}  In the table above, 22.2\% of the respondents strongly agreed that people of the same cultural and language background should adapt to new cultures and not maintain their own, 28.9\% somewhat agreed on the same while 26.7\% somewhat disagreed, and 22.2\% were not sure. However, despite the data above, focusing on assimilation is criticized for resulting in a monoculture that is void of meaning and personal identity. This case is also applicable to the Fourfold theory by John  {\ref Berry \& Annis (1994;} {\ref 2001: 382-406)} herein disqualifying the two theories.\par
i 
\section[{. The Alternation Model: A Potential Theory Applicable in the Study}]{. The Alternation Model: A Potential Theory Applicable in the Study}\par
The model as espoused by LaFramboise et al (1993) posits that an individual can maintain a positive relationship with both cultures without necessarily choosing between them. It ignores the hierarchical relationships between the two cultures to allow Missing individuals in a cosmopolitan environment to attach equal status to both cultures, despite whether they value them equally. To ascertain the effectiveness of the Alternation Model to this study, two variables are compared; the importance of speaking both Kiswahili and mother tongue Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.17 and the need to maintain personal and contact culture Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4} In the table above, 25.6\% of the respondents strongly agreed with cultural alternation. Similarly, most of the respondents (66.7\%) strongly agreed, with language alternation (Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.17). The model is ideal for the study since it focuses on both cognitive and affective procedures that allow individuals in the Rift Valley of Kenya to endure the adverse effects of acculturative stress. Also, it examines the role that individuals in the co-cultures have in selecting how to interact with the culture they get in contact with and their original culture. 
\section[{g) Data Analysis and Interpretation}]{g) Data Analysis and Interpretation}\par
Here, the research questions are answered using the data obtained from the respondents in the Rift Valley of Kenya. The analysis is presented in a duo format vis-à-vis to the two research questions. 
\section[{i. Effects of a Cross-Cultural Language on Interrelationship in the Rift Valley}]{i. Effects of a Cross-Cultural Language on Interrelationship in the Rift Valley}\par
The first research question: How does the existence of a cross-cultural language affect interrelationship among individuals from different cultural sub-sets in the Rift Valley? This is the first research question and to answer it, the interrelationship between people from diverse cultural sub-sets within the Rift Valley of Kenya is compromised, evident from the responses provided by inhabitants within the region. This gap has resulted in effects such as social discrimination, intimidation, exclusion, biased acceptance and name-calling outside informal settings represented by data in tables 4.  {\ref 19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22 and 4.24}, respectively. However, it is significant to note that 50\% of the respondents reported that they never got to be called names or teased at formal settings (Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.23) compared to 41.3\% who reported that it happens often, and 8.7\% who reported very often. This is a result of intercultural awareness promoted by policies at formal settings within the Rift Valley of Kenya, such as the use of Kiswahili for intercultural communication. Kiswahili plays a significant role in varied social settings to ease intercultural understanding. It bridges a communication gap to the population not fluent in a local language or English within the Rift Valley of Kenya. It is significant to note that, during the informal use of Kiswahili, the phrases that are not grammatically correct are used during everyday intercultural interactions to fulfill the purpose of communication \hyperref[b40]{(Mbori \& Mulaudzi, 2012)}. The appropriate response to the familiar Kiswahili phrases among individuals from a vast, diverse Rift Valley allows the feed-forward during conversations.\par
In practice, Kiswahili is used formally and informally within the Rift Valley of Kenya in the following ways: In the workplace/school, most of the respondents (67.4\%) reported speaking Kiswahili, while 30.4\% reported to speak English, and the other 2.2\% mother tongue. Informally, in markets, to ease trade, (87\%) of the respondents reported speaking Kiswahili as compared to 8.7\% who used English and 4.3\% of the respondents who speak mother tongue at the market place (Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4} In Table \hyperref[tab_16]{4}.28 above, (67.4\%) strongly agreed that Kiswahili enhances long-term intercultural relations among diverse communities in the rift valley, 6.5\% somewhat agreed on the same. However, 15.2\% of the respondents were not sure, while 10.9\% somewhat disagreed. 
\section[{h) The role of Kiswahili in the Rift Valley of Kenya}]{h) The role of Kiswahili in the Rift Valley of Kenya}\par
Majority of the respondents (43.5\%) agreed that Kiswahili unites. Another 32.6\% perceive Kiswahili as a language that gives pride. Also, 17.4\% admitted that they use Kiswahili to understand each other, 2.2\% thought that Kiswahili was important in helping them share the same vision, which translates to the continuation of national ethos. Similarly, 2.2\% of respondents describe their identity by using Kiswahili. Finally, 2.2\% of respondents use Kiswahili for socialization (table 4.29). The chi-square statistics is 0.0277, whereas the p-value (alpha value) is 0.9988. The data above reflects that the outcomes of the research are independent at a significant alpha level of greater than 0.05.\par
To conclude, relevant data collected via the administration of questionnaires are presented and analysed in this chapter. The main objective was to answer the research questions by determining the role Kiswahili plays in promoting intercultural communication and strengthening national ethos amongst the cocultures of the Rift Valley in Kenya. The data focused on the effects of lack of a cross-cultural language and how it affects interrelationship among individuals from different cultural sub-sets in the Rift Valley. Also, the chapter scrutinized how Kiswahili enhances intercultural relations among diverse communities impacting national ethos in the region by underpinning various contexts of Kiswahili use. Furthermore, theory triangulation is performed to establish an appropriate theory that is suitable for this study.\par
The chapter outlines the role of Kiswahili in intercultural communication within diverse intercultural backgrounds of the Rift Valley. The next chapter will synthesize the hypothesis of the study, announce the applicable theory to this research, outline the recommendations and conclude the entire study. 
\section[{Chapter Five}]{Chapter Five}\par
V. 
\section[{General Conclusion}]{General Conclusion}\par
This chapter reviews the general research questions of the study, summarises the findings and verifies the hypothesis. Furthermore, the chapter will provide theoretical implications, the significance of the study, prospects for future research and the limitations of the current study. 
\section[{a) Summary of the Study}]{a) Summary of the Study}\par
The constant migration of people across cultural boundaries causes cultural interaction, which necessitates intercultural communication; this in turn, dictates the need to have a lingua franca. The lack of an appropriate transborder language of communication always leads to misunderstandings that compromise national ethos and drive intercultural conflicts among various diverse cultural sub-sets. This problem led to the need to examine the role that Kiswahili plays in promoting intercultural communication and strengthening national ethos amongst the co-cultures of the Rift Valley in Kenya.\par
The research objectives are attained by collecting qualitative and quantitative data via the administration of a questionnaire. In particular, the quantitative data are analyzed scientifically by using SPSS and outcomes presented in tables. Conversely, the qualitative data were analysed through narrative and theory triangulation to inform the outcome of the study. 
\section[{b) Attainment of Research Objectives}]{b) Attainment of Research Objectives}\par
The research focuses on two objectives. The first objective is to examine the directional influence of a cross-cultural language on interrelationships among people from diverse cultural sub-sets in the Rift Valley in Kenya. This objective has been attained, evident from the data collected, 31 of the 47 respondents strongly agreed that Kiswahili is a language that links all the existing cultural sub-sets within the region, garnering a 67.4\%. It is important to note that the use of Kiswahili breaks the divide among the dominant and the sub-set cultures within the Rift Valley in Kenya, thereby creating a state of balance that blocks any form of influence from neither side.\par
The second objective of the study is to evaluate the role of Kiswahili in enhancing intercultural relations and building national ethos in the region. This aim has also been achieved through the quantitative data collected. Notably, 31 out of the 47 respondents strongly agree that Kiswahili enhances a long-term intercultural relationship among diverse communities in the Rift Valley of Kenya. The idea above is crosschecked by 67.4\% of the total sampled population who perceive Kiswahili as a language that unites people within the Rift Valley of Kenya. This role directly links to the development of national ethos, thereby giving them a common identity that is passed from one generation to the next. 
\section[{c) Synthesis of the Results}]{c) Synthesis of the Results}\par
The findings of the research indicated that diversity is appreciated through the utilisation of various languages in diverse settings of social interaction within the Rift Valley of Kenya. However, despite 32.6\% of the population within the Rift Valley acknowledging that Kiswahili was not their first language, 100\% of the population speak the language and accept it as a lingua franca which is used in several pertinent contexts that are implicative to answer the research question under study. These contexts are summarized as follows; in domestic communication, 47.8\% of the total respondents accepted to use Kiswahili as compared to 6.5\% of mother-tongue users and 43.5\% English speakers. In formal communication that comprises schools and job environments, 67.4\% of the total population accepted to communicate in Kiswahili as opposed to 30.4\% English speakers and 2.2\% mothertongue users. Furthermore, 73.9\% of the sample population admitted to use Kiswahili while interacting with friends; this is opposed to 4.3\% mother-tongue users, 15.2\% English speakers and 6.6\% users of other unspecified languages. Also, 87.9\% of the sample population agreed to be using Kiswahili while in the market. On the contrary, 4.3\% of the population admits using mother tongue and 8.7\% use other languages. In the church, 76.5\% of the sampled population admitted to be using Kiswahili while 15.7\% admitted to be using English, 5.9\% of the population used mother tongue and 2\% of them used other unspecified languages. Finally, during other social gatherings-weddings, sports, burials, and local meetings, 69.6\% of the sample population admitted to be using Kiswahili, 15.2\% used English, 10.9\% spoke mother tongue, while 4.3\% communicated using other unspecified languages.\par
Another pertinent spectrum is the use of Kiswahili as a unification factor. This role directly links to the development of national ethos since citizens within the Rift Valley of Kenya relate through speaking of Kiswahili; thereby, it gives them a common identity that is passed from one generation to the other. Evident to this, 43.5\% of the total sampled population perceived Kiswahili as a language that unites people within the Rift Valley of Kenya as opposed to 17.4\% who took the communicative approach and looked at Kiswahili as a language that makes them understand one another, 2.2\% who perceived it from the socialization approach and the 2.2\% who see Kiswahili as a language that makes people in the Rift Valley to share one culture. 
\section[{d) Theory Application}]{d) Theory Application}\par
To close the linguistic gap that breeds differences and conflicts within the Rift Valley in Kenya, 80.9\% of the total sampled population agreed to learn and use Kiswahili to block linguistic orientations to solve conflicts relating to language differences. The above concurs with a range of 28 respondents (66.7\%) who strongly agreed that it was important for them to be fluent in both Kiswahili and mother tongue, which confirms to the Alternation Model propounded by LaFramboise et al.  {\ref (1993)}. As Ogbu \& Matute-Bianchi (1986: 89) admit, a person can belong to two cultures and use two diverse languages for diverse purposes by alternating behavior depending on the situation. The Alternation theory assumes that an individual can feel a sense of belonging to two cultures and not compromise their cultural identity. 
\section[{e) Verification of Research Hypotheses}]{e) Verification of Research Hypotheses}\par
The study focused on two hypotheses which needed to be verified through data presentation. A chisquare test of independence was performed to examine whether there is a relationship between Kiswahili and national ethos.\par
The first hypothesis states that a cross-cultural language affects how people relate in a cosmopolitan region-and consequently, becomes a unifying factor. This hypothesis was followed up by the open question, which required respondents to state the role that Kiswahili play in the Rift Valley region of Kenya; 43.5\% of the total sampled population perceived Kiswahili as a language that unites people within the Rift Valley of Kenya as opposed to 17.4\%, 2.2\% and 2.2\% who take the communicative approach, socialisation approach and cultural approach respectively. This reflects Kiswahili as a unification language within the Rift Valley of Kenya, thereby interfering with all tensional interrelationships posed by language differences within the region.\par
The second hypothesis states that Kiswahili helps in defining and building pillars of national ethos among citizens in Rift-Valley in Kenya. This hypothesis has been verified since citizens within the Rift Valley of Kenya relate through speaking Kiswahili; thereby, it gives them a common identity that is passed from one generation to the other reflected by the 2.2\% response, source of pride 32.6\%, helps them share a common understanding 17.4\%, gives them a vision 2.2\% and socializes them 2.2\%. Cumulatively, 56.6\% of the respondents perceived Kiswahili as a language that helps them build the pillars of national ethos. 
\section[{f) Limitations of the Study}]{f) Limitations of the Study}\par
This part covers general limitations throughout the study. First, the questionnaire is limited to a few selected contexts which are considered as areas of the possible use of Kiswahili. The contexts are; home, school, working environment, church, market, friends, and other social gatherings (weddings, sports, burials, and local meetings). These settings are not the only salient areas where Kiswahili can be used.\par
Also, the data collected are limited to only 50 respondents as stipulated by the scope of the research. 
\section[{g) Challenges Encountered during the Study}]{g) Challenges Encountered during the Study}\par
The Covid-19 pandemic period, posed a heavy setback by slowing data collection due to the prevention measures such as limitation of face-to-face meeting.\par
Also, some respondents did not comply with filling the questionnaire. The research focused on 50 respondents, among them, others did not commit themselves fully to filling the entire questionnaire. This prompted the researcher to opt for data saturation to predict their outcome, which is the source of research errors.\par
Finally, many companies denied to grant executive interviews thereby slowing the process and lowering the morale of the researcher. 
\section[{h) Relevance of the Study}]{h) Relevance of the Study}\par
Intercultural communication cannot happen in isolation without the aspect of language. This has led to the emergence of studies similar to this that look at language as a primary tenet in intercultural communication.\par
This study is pertinent to the body of knowledge since it opens up other wider perspectives of utilizing a language to promote regional integration, particularly in Africa.\par
The study helps in policy formation by bodies like the Directorate of National Cohesion and National Values in Kenya.\par
It is also significant in helping the National Steering Committee (NSC) on Peacebuilding and Conflict Management to understand an intercultural communication strand in conflict management.\par
Moreover, this study is significant to help individuals moving into any cosmopolitan region to understand the need to develop a flexible approach to alternate to the new cultural contexts to help them coexist.\par
Finally, the study serves as an eye-opener to the political goodwill to necessitate the development of policies and activities which enhance national ethos. 
\section[{i) Recommendations of the Study}]{i) Recommendations of the Study}\par
The research outcomes attained from the study have prompted the development of the following recommendations:\par
First, cosmopolitan regions, an example of the Rift Valley in Kenya, are characterised by a mosaic richness of differences that have a shared point; it is recommended that diversity be recast but not abandoned.\par
Moreover, it is recommended that the subcultures should not abandon the values, customs and norms that define national ethos even though they can modify them.\par
It is recommended that governments should support policies and activities that help every group in the society to maintain their peculiar sub-culture-the policies, institutions and habits which do not interfere with the shared loyalty to the state. Furthermore, it is recommended that African nations should incorporate the commemoration of diversity holidays in their annual calendars to celebrate diversity.\par
Finally, it is recommended that citizens should be willing to learn Kiswahili, which makes them break the language barrier and enhance their interrelationships within a region, a nation and across borders. By doing so, they can easily cope with any bicultural setting. 
\section[{j) Suggestions for Future Research}]{j) Suggestions for Future Research}\par
This study opens up the gap of intercultural domains that have not been widely explored. Domains such as values and beliefs are not yet widely explored since they are important strands linked to identity discussions.\par
Also, the Alternation Model examines the role that individuals have in selecting how to interact with the culture they get in contact with and their original culture \hyperref[b37]{(LaFromboise et al., 1993)}. The model opens the gap of bidirectional effects of cultural connection that researchers should put under study to understand the impacts that individuals from both cultures have on one another.\par
Finally, since the appropriate responses to the familiar Kiswahili phrases among individuals from a vast, diverse Rift Valley in Kenya only serves the purpose of feed-forward during conversations, there is a need to study the gap that questions the level of mastery of standard Kiswahili among the majority of the people from the Rift Valley of Kenya.\par
To conclude, the Rift Valley comprises over 40 ethnic groups. The region has been rocked regularly by ethnolinguistic tribal upheavals witnessed in 1992, 1997, and 2007 due to the negative attitudes of dominant cultures towards the co-cultures perpetuating a notion of superiority and inferiority complex attributed to ethnicity. The Inferiority complex is resultant of the negative attitude that residents view other subcultures with. This prompted the research to examine the role of Kiswahili in promoting intercultural communication and strengthening national ethos amongst the co-cultures of the Rift Valley in Kenya.\par
It is encouraging to note that the negative perspective is gradually changing through the use of Kiswahili as a cross-cultural lingua franca in the region. Diverse language groups actively engage one another in Kiswahili, therefore, easing trans-border communication.\par
By using a common language, a community of Kiswahili speakers is created, binding all other language groups together. The binding mechanism should not be mistaken with assimilation; individuals from diverse language groups are free to alternate between their native cultures and the Kiswahili culture. Nevertheless, the fact that diversity still predominates individualistic culture, the various communities are obliged to interact to co-exist through a cross-border call to fulfill the demands in social life.\par
The use of Kiswahili has necessitated communication within the Rift Valley of Kenya, which is in the form of official communications, trading activities, inter-denominational services, intercultural ceremonies, sporting activities and domestic interactions. Documenting Kiswahili as a national language in the Kenyan policy documents has led it to act as a unifying factor for the users. This is because learning and speaking one language translates into sharing cultural values that are embraced by speakers. Furthermore, the adoption of the new constitution in 2010 prioritized the use of Kiswahili at the frontline to every native within the boundary of Kenya. This has set the trend across the country to view Kiswahili as an indigenous language that is a symbol of national unity, a form of identity, a sense of belonging, and pride. The sense of pride as Kenyans and Kiswahili speakers has contributed to a positive intercultural relationship of communities within the Rift Valley. In prediction, Kiswahili will continue to grow because it has become a day-to-day denominator in communication in almost every social aspect of life within the Rift Valley of Kenya.  
\section[{List of Abbreviations}]{List of Abbreviations}      \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.6988493723849373\textwidth}P{0.051569037656903766\textwidth}P{0.099581589958159\textwidth}}
Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
propounded by Bennett (1993), the theory of\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (DAD) by Kramer\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
(2013: 123-184), the Fourfold Model by Berry (1994;\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
2001: 382-406), and the Alternation Model advocated\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
by LaFramboise et al, (1993). Through theory\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
triangulation, the most applicable theory to the study will\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
be determined in the next chapter.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2021\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep )\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep ( -Global Journal of Human Social Science A\\
They\tabcellsep include\tabcellsep the\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{© 2021 Global Journals}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{41} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2833333333333333\textwidth}P{0.09272727272727271\textwidth}P{0.1390909090909091\textwidth}P{0.25757575757575757\textwidth}P{0.07727272727272727\textwidth}}
Gender\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep Percent\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Percent Cumulative Percentage}\\
Male\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 44.7\tabcellsep 45.7\tabcellsep 45.7\\
Valid\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Female\tabcellsep 25\tabcellsep 53.2\tabcellsep 54.3\tabcellsep 54.3\\
Valid Responses\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 . 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{42} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.16921296296296295\textwidth}P{0.12199074074074073\textwidth}P{0.08657407407407407\textwidth}P{0.14560185185185187\textwidth}P{0.14953703703703702\textwidth}P{0.17708333333333334\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Age Bracket}\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep Percent\tabcellsep Valid Percent\tabcellsep Cumulative Percentage\\
\tabcellsep 18-25\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 21.7\tabcellsep 21.7\\
\tabcellsep 25-30\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep 48.9\tabcellsep 50.0\tabcellsep 71.7\\
Valid\tabcellsep 30-35\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 21.7\tabcellsep 93.5\\
\tabcellsep 35-40\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep 97.8\\
\tabcellsep 40-45\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep 2.2\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 4 . 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{43} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.22471264367816093\textwidth}P{0.1074712643678161\textwidth}P{0.08793103448275862\textwidth}P{0.13189655172413794\textwidth}P{0.1367816091954023\textwidth}P{0.16120689655172413\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Place of Birth}\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep Percent\tabcellsep Valid Percent\tabcellsep Cumulative Percentage\\
Valid\tabcellsep Rift valley\tabcellsep 33\tabcellsep 70.2\tabcellsep 71.7\tabcellsep 71.7\\
\tabcellsep Other\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 27.7\tabcellsep 28.3\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 4 . 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{44} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.19704545454545452\textwidth}P{0.18545454545454543\textwidth}P{0.06954545454545455\textwidth}P{0.2665909090909091\textwidth}P{0.06954545454545455\textwidth}P{0.061818181818181814\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Duration of stay in RV}\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep More than 10 years\tabcellsep 35\tabcellsep 74.5\tabcellsep 76.1\tabcellsep 76.1\\
Valid\tabcellsep 1-5 years\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 17.0\tabcellsep 17.4\tabcellsep 93.5\\
\tabcellsep 5-10 years\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 6.4\tabcellsep 6.5\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
v.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 4 . 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{45} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3315\textwidth}P{0.0425\textwidth}P{0.0765\textwidth}P{0.17\textwidth}P{0.1275\textwidth}P{0.102\textwidth}}
Valid\tabcellsep Yes\tabcellsep 32\tabcellsep 68.1\tabcellsep 69.6\tabcellsep 69.6\\
\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 29.8\tabcellsep 30.4\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Missing System}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 4 . 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{46} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.27164948453608245\textwidth}P{0.05257731958762887\textwidth}P{0.08762886597938144\textwidth}P{0.18402061855670104\textwidth}P{0.1402061855670103\textwidth}P{0.11391752577319587\textwidth}}
Valid\tabcellsep Yes No\tabcellsep 31 15\tabcellsep 66.0 31.9\tabcellsep 67.4 32.6\tabcellsep 67.4 -\\
Valid Responses\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{System}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 4 . 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{47} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.14702702702702702\textwidth}P{0.20216216216216218\textwidth}P{0.06891891891891892\textwidth}P{0.1608108108108108\textwidth}P{0.13783783783783785\textwidth}P{0.13324324324324324\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Nandi\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 29.8\tabcellsep 30.4\tabcellsep 30.4\\
\tabcellsep Keiyo\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep 34.8\\
Valid\tabcellsep Kipsigis Sabaot\tabcellsep 6 11\tabcellsep 12.8 23.4\tabcellsep 13.0 23.9\tabcellsep 47.8 71.7\\
\tabcellsep Marakwet\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 25.5\tabcellsep 26.1\tabcellsep 97.8\\
\tabcellsep Tugen\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep 2.2\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 4 . 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{48} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2125\textwidth}P{0.179296875\textwidth}P{0.06640625\textwidth}P{0.159375\textwidth}P{0.126171875\textwidth}P{0.10625\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Often\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep 48.9\tabcellsep 50.0\tabcellsep 50.0\\
Valid\tabcellsep Very often\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 38.3\tabcellsep 39.1\tabcellsep 89.1\\
\tabcellsep Rarely\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 10.6\tabcellsep 10.9\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 4 . 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{49} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5719791666666667\textwidth}P{0.023020833333333334\textwidth}P{0.017708333333333333\textwidth}P{0.04072916666666667\textwidth}P{0.16822916666666665\textwidth}P{0.028333333333333332\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Kiswahili}\tabcellsep 31\tabcellsep 66.0\tabcellsep 67.4\tabcellsep 67.4\\
Valid\tabcellsep English\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 29.8\tabcellsep 30.4\tabcellsep 97.8\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Mother tongue}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep 2.2\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{ii. The informal use of Kiswahili in the Rift Valley of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{English. Only 4.3\% reported speaking their mother}\\
Kenya\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep tongue in the market place.\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{This section examines the use of Kiswahili in a}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{relaxed environment and context.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{iii. The Use of Kiswahili in Markets}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{A larger majority (87\%) reported speaking}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Kiswahili while at the market place, and 8.7\% spoke}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Table 4 . 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{410} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3773067331670823\textwidth}P{0.04663341645885286\textwidth}P{0.01907730673316708\textwidth}P{0.04663341645885286\textwidth}P{0.32643391521197007\textwidth}P{0.03391521197007481\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Kiswahili\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 85.1\tabcellsep 87.0\tabcellsep 87.0\\
Valid\tabcellsep English\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 8.5\tabcellsep 8.7\tabcellsep 95.7\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Mother tongue}\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{iv. The Use of Kiswahili at Home According to the table below, (47.8\%) of the respondents reported that they speak Kiswahili most of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{the time when they are at home. Another 43.5\% reported speaking English mostly. The remaining 6.5\% reported speaking the mother tongue.}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}Table 4 . 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{411} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.14806451612903226\textwidth}P{0.25225806451612903\textwidth}P{0.06580645161290323\textwidth}P{0.14806451612903226\textwidth}P{0.12064516129032257\textwidth}P{0.11516129032258066\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Kiswahili\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep 46.8\tabcellsep 47.8\tabcellsep 47.8\\
Valid\tabcellsep English Mother tongue\tabcellsep 20 3\tabcellsep 42.6 6.4\tabcellsep 43.5 6.5\tabcellsep 91.3 97.8\\
\tabcellsep Other\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep 2.2\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_13}Table 4 . 11 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{412} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.16242038216560511\textwidth}P{0.24904458598726112\textwidth}P{0.05955414012738853\textwidth}P{0.14617834394904458\textwidth}P{0.11910828025477706\textwidth}P{0.11369426751592356\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Kiswahili\tabcellsep 34\tabcellsep 72.3\tabcellsep 73.9\tabcellsep 73.9\\
Valid\tabcellsep English Mother tongue\tabcellsep 7 2\tabcellsep 14.9 4.3\tabcellsep 15.2 4.4\tabcellsep 89.1 93.5\\
\tabcellsep Other\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 6.4\tabcellsep 6.5\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
vi.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_14}Table 4 . 12 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{413} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06538461538461539\textwidth}P{0.33237179487179486\textwidth}P{0.05993589743589743\textwidth}P{0.15256410256410255\textwidth}P{0.12532051282051282\textwidth}P{0.11442307692307692\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Kiswahili\tabcellsep 32\tabcellsep 68.1\tabcellsep 69.6\tabcellsep 69.6\\
Valid\tabcellsep English Mother tongue\tabcellsep 7 5\tabcellsep 14.9 10.6\tabcellsep 15.2 10.9\tabcellsep 84.8 95.7\\
\tabcellsep Other\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Valid Responses\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_15}Table 4 . 13 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.24591194968553456\textwidth}P{0.14433962264150943\textwidth}P{0.058805031446540874\textwidth}P{0.16037735849056606\textwidth}P{0.12830188679245283\textwidth}P{0.11226415094339622\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Strongly agree}\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 38.3\tabcellsep 47.4\tabcellsep 47.4\\
Valid\tabcellsep Agree Neutral\tabcellsep 5 6\tabcellsep 10.6 12.8\tabcellsep 13.2 15.8\tabcellsep 60.5 76.3\\
\tabcellsep Disagree\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 19.1\tabcellsep 23.7\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 80.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 19.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_16}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{416} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.24437499999999998\textwidth}P{0.1434375\textwidth}P{0.0690625\textwidth}P{0.1540625\textwidth}P{0.1275\textwidth}P{0.1115625\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Strongly agree}\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 23.4\tabcellsep 30.6\tabcellsep 30.6\\
Valid\tabcellsep Agree Neutral\tabcellsep 6 15\tabcellsep 12.8 31.9\tabcellsep 16.7 41.7\tabcellsep 47.2 88.9\\
\tabcellsep Disagree\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 8.5\tabcellsep 11.1\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 76.6\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 23.4\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_17}Table 4 . 16 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{417} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2962121212121212\textwidth}P{0.11590909090909089\textwidth}P{0.06439393939393939\textwidth}P{0.15454545454545454\textwidth}P{0.11590909090909089\textwidth}P{0.10303030303030303\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Strongly agree}\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep 59.6\tabcellsep 66.7\tabcellsep 66.7\\
Valid\tabcellsep Agree\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 23.8\tabcellsep 90.5\\
\tabcellsep Neutral\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 8.5\tabcellsep 9.5\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 42\tabcellsep 89.4\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 10.6\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_18}Table 4 . 17 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2782918149466192\textwidth}P{0.0786476868327402\textwidth}P{0.1209964412811388\textwidth}P{0.21779359430604983\textwidth}P{0.08167259786476867\textwidth}P{0.07259786476868327\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{18: Marginalization}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Kiswahili and Marginalization}\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Strongly agree}\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 14.9\tabcellsep 18.9\tabcellsep 18.9\\
\tabcellsep Agree\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 8.5\tabcellsep 10.8\tabcellsep 29.7\\
Valid\tabcellsep Neutral\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 12.8\tabcellsep 16.2\tabcellsep 45.9\\
\tabcellsep Disagree\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 12.8\tabcellsep 16.2\tabcellsep 62.2\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Strongly disagree}\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 29.8\tabcellsep 37.8\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 37\tabcellsep 78.7\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_19}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40753424657534243\textwidth}P{0.11255707762557077\textwidth}P{0.03881278538812785\textwidth}P{0.1591324200913242\textwidth}P{0.06986301369863013\textwidth}P{0.06210045662100456\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{19: Discrimination}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Discrimination Frequency Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Never\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 29.8\tabcellsep 30.4\tabcellsep 30.4\\
Valid\tabcellsep Sometimes\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 61.7\tabcellsep 63.0\tabcellsep 93.5\\
\tabcellsep Very often\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 6.4\tabcellsep 6.5\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Missing System}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_20}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40345622119815666\textwidth}P{0.11359447004608295\textwidth}P{0.0391705069124424\textwidth}P{0.09400921658986175\textwidth}P{0.13709677419354838\textwidth}P{0.06267281105990784\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 20: Intimidation\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Intimidation Frequency Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Never\tabcellsep 19\tabcellsep 40.4\tabcellsep 41.3\tabcellsep 41.3\\
Valid\tabcellsep Sometimes\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 44.7\tabcellsep 45.7\tabcellsep 87.0\\
\tabcellsep Very often\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 12.8\tabcellsep 13.0\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Missing System}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_21}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
21: Exclusion\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_22}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{422} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.18423645320197046\textwidth}P{0.14655172413793105\textwidth}P{0.07955665024630541\textwidth}P{0.2931034482758621\textwidth}P{0.07955665024630541\textwidth}P{0.06699507389162561\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Biased Acceptance}\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Never\tabcellsep 25\tabcellsep 53.2\tabcellsep 54.3\tabcellsep 54.3\\
Valid\tabcellsep Sometimes\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 27.7\tabcellsep 28.3\tabcellsep 82.6\\
\tabcellsep Very often\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 17.0\tabcellsep 17.4\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_23}Table 4 . 22 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3741312741312741\textwidth}P{0.11486486486486487\textwidth}P{0.17393822393822395\textwidth}P{0.07548262548262548\textwidth}P{0.059073359073359075\textwidth}P{0.05250965250965251\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Table 4.23: Name-calling at formal settings}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Stereotypes at Formal Settings Frequency Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Never\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep 48.9\tabcellsep 50.0\tabcellsep 50.0\\
Valid\tabcellsep Sometimes\tabcellsep 19\tabcellsep 40.4\tabcellsep 41.3\tabcellsep 91.3\\
\tabcellsep Very often\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 8.5\tabcellsep 8.7\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_24}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.03483606557377049\textwidth}P{0.3483606557377049\textwidth}P{0.06967213114754098\textwidth}P{0.16024590163934424\textwidth}P{0.12540983606557377\textwidth}P{0.11147540983606558\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Never\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 44.7\tabcellsep 45.7\tabcellsep 45.7\\
Valid\tabcellsep Sometimes\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep 46.8\tabcellsep 47.8\tabcellsep 93.5\\
\tabcellsep Very often\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 6.4\tabcellsep 6.5\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Valid Responses\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_25}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{425} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.15666666666666668\textwidth}P{0.21666666666666665\textwidth}P{0.07666666666666666\textwidth}P{0.25\textwidth}P{0.08\textwidth}P{0.06999999999999999\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Test of Assimilation}\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Strongly agree\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 22.2\tabcellsep 22.2\\
Valid\tabcellsep Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree\tabcellsep 13 12\tabcellsep 27.7 25.5\tabcellsep 28.9 26.7\tabcellsep 51.1 77.8\\
\tabcellsep Not sure\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 22.2\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 45\tabcellsep 95.7\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 4.3\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_26}Table 4 . 25 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{426} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.1275\textwidth}P{0.3069444444444444\textwidth}P{0.06138888888888888\textwidth}P{0.14166666666666666\textwidth}P{0.11333333333333333\textwidth}P{0.09916666666666667\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Strongly agree\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 25.6\tabcellsep 25.6\\
Valid\tabcellsep Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree\tabcellsep 9 10\tabcellsep 19.1 21.3\tabcellsep 23.1 25.6\tabcellsep 48.7 74.4\\
\tabcellsep Not sure\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 21.3\tabcellsep 25.6\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 39\tabcellsep 83.0\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 17.0\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_27}Table 4 . 26 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{427} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.29075500770416024\textwidth}P{0.08513097072419105\textwidth}P{0.08775038520801233\textwidth}P{0.03667180277349769\textwidth}P{0.3221879815100154\textwidth}P{0.027503852080123264\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Responses}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Frequency Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Not sure\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 17.0\tabcellsep 17.4\tabcellsep 17.4\\
Valid\tabcellsep Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree\tabcellsep 2 5\tabcellsep 4.3 10.6\tabcellsep 4.3 10.9\tabcellsep 21.7 32.6\\
\tabcellsep Strongly agree\tabcellsep 31\tabcellsep 66.0\tabcellsep 67.4\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Majority of the respondents (67.4\%) strongly}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{ii. Kiswahili Enhancing Intercultural Relations in the Rift}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{agreed that Kiswahili links the existing cultural sub-set}\tabcellsep Valley of Kenya\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{within the rift valley. Another 17.4\% were not sure while}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{The second research question reads: How can}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{10.9\% somewhat disagreed.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Kiswahili enhance intercultural relations among diverse}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{communities impacting national ethos in the region?}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_28}Table 4 . 27 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.827979274611399\textwidth}P{0.022020725388601035\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Kiswahili when with friends, compared to 15.2\% that}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{speak English and 4.3\% who speak their mother tongue}\\
when with friends.\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Moreover, during other social gatherings}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{(weddings, sports, burials, and local meetings), (69.6\%)}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{of the respondents reported speaking Kiswahili to}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{facilitate intercultural communication, another 15.2 \%}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{spoke English and 10.9\% reported to use mother}\\
tongue at other social gatherings.\tabcellsep Finally, it was\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{important to rate how Kiswahili enhances a long-term}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{intercultural relation among diverse communities in the}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Rift Valley of Kenya, represented by the outcomes in}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_29}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{428} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09602510460251046\textwidth}P{0.2631799163179916\textwidth}P{0.2382845188284519\textwidth}P{0.099581589958159\textwidth}P{0.08179916317991631\textwidth}P{0.0711297071129707\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Responses\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Frequency Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Not sure\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 14.9\tabcellsep 15.2\tabcellsep 15.2\\
Valid\tabcellsep Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree\tabcellsep 3 5\tabcellsep 6.4 10.6\tabcellsep 6.5 10.9\tabcellsep 21.7 32.6\\
\tabcellsep Strongly agree\tabcellsep 31\tabcellsep 66.0\tabcellsep 67.4\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Valid Responses}\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep \\
Missing\tabcellsep System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_30}Table 4 . 28 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{429} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.012212643678160919\textwidth}P{0.4420977011494252\textwidth}P{0.17097701149425287\textwidth}P{0.08304597701149426\textwidth}P{0.07083333333333333\textwidth}P{0.07083333333333333\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep The Role of Kiswahili\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Frequency Percent Valid Percentage Cumulative Percentage}\\
\tabcellsep Unifying factor\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 42.6\tabcellsep 43.5\tabcellsep 43.5\\
\tabcellsep Agent of pride\tabcellsep 15\tabcellsep 31.9\tabcellsep 32.6\tabcellsep 76.1\\
Valid\tabcellsep Source of a shared understanding Source of a shared vision\tabcellsep 8 1\tabcellsep 17.0 2.1\tabcellsep 17.4 2.2\tabcellsep 93.5 95.7\\
\tabcellsep Identity function\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep 2.2\tabcellsep 97.8\\
\tabcellsep Socialisation function\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep 2.2\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Valid Responses\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 97.9\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Missing System\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2.1\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep -\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 47\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\tabcellsep 100.0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_31}Table 4 . 29 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3915989159891599\textwidth}P{0.18888888888888888\textwidth}P{0.10826558265582656\textwidth}P{0.03685636856368563\textwidth}P{0.048373983739837395\textwidth}P{0.07601626016260163\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{30: Chi-Square Test}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Chi-Square Results}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep Percent\tabcellsep Valid percent\tabcellsep Cumulative percent\tabcellsep Row Totals\\
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Kiswahili as an intercultural link 20 (20.08) [0.00] 43 (43.64) [0.01] 44 (43.64) [0.00] 44 (43.64) [0.00]}\tabcellsep 151\\
Kiswahili as a building pillar of national identity\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{26 (25.92) [0.00] 57 (56.36) [0.01] 56 (56.36) [0.00] 56 (56.36) [0.00]}\tabcellsep 195\\
Column Totals\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 346 (Grand Total)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_32}Table 4 .}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Said ()]{b55}\label{b55} 	 		\textit{},  		 			E Said 		.  	 	 		\textit{Orientalism}  		1978. Pantheon.  	 
\bibitem[Pearson et al. ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		\textit{},  		 			J C Pearson 		,  		 			P E Nelson 		,  		 			S Titsworth 		,  		 			L Harter 		.  		2017. McGraw-Hill Education.  	 	 (Human communication) 
\bibitem[Walton and Cohen ()]{b63}\label{b63} 	 		‘A Question of Belonging: Race, Social Fit, and Achievement’.  		 			G Walton 		,  		 			G Cohen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}  		2007. 92  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Berry ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Acculturation: a personal journey across cultures},  		 			J W Berry 		.  		2019. Cambridge University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Berry and Annis ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Acculturative stress: The role of ecology, culture and differentiation’.  		 			J W Berry 		,  		 			R C Annis 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of cross-cultural psychology}  		2001. 5  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hall et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		\textit{An Introduction to Women's Studies: Gender in a Transnational World},  		 			S Hall 		,  		 			C Grewal 		,  		 			Kaplan 		.  		2002. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. .  	 	 (From 'Routes' to Roots) 
\bibitem[Vadher ()]{b62}\label{b62} 	 		\textit{Beyond the four-fold model: Acculturation, identifications and cultural practices in British adolescents},  		 			K Vadher 		.  		2009.  		 			University of Surrey (United Kingdom 		 	 
\bibitem[Building a cohesive Kenyan society: The NCIC Experience National Cohesion Integrated Commission ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Building a cohesive Kenyan society: The NCIC Experience’.  	 	 		\textit{National Cohesion Integrated Commission}  		2013. NCIC.  	 
\bibitem[Hall et al. ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		\textit{Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader},  		 			S P Hall 		,  		 			L Williams 		,  		 			Chrisman 		.  		1994. New York: Columbia University Press. p. .  	 	 (Cultural Identity and Diaspora) 
\bibitem[Bonett and Wright ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning’.  		 			D G Bonett 		,  		 			T A Wright 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Organizational Behavior}  		2015. 36  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Nussbaum ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		\textit{Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education (1997), trad. it. Coltivare l'umanità. I classici, il multiculturalismo},  		 			M C Nussbaum 		.  		2011.  	 	 (l'educazione contemporanea) 
\bibitem[Cupsa ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Culture shock and identity’.  		 			I Cupsa 		.  	 	 		\textit{Transactional Analysis Journal}  		2018. 48  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mumford ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		\textit{Designing the modern city: Urbanism since 1850},  		 			E Mumford 		.  		2018. Yale University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Bennett and Bennett ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity},  		 			J M Bennett 		,  		 			M J Bennett 		.  		2004. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kramer ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		\textit{Dimensional accrual and dissociation: An introduction. Communication, comparative cultures, and civilizations},  		 			E M Kramer 		.  		2013. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ferri ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘E.U. participation in the UNESCO convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions: some constitutional remarks’.  		 			D Ferri 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Diversity and Autonomy Papers EDAP}  		2005. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bornman ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Emerging patterns of social identification in postapartheid South Africa’.  		 			E Bornman 		.  		 \url{https://doiorg/101111/j1540-4560}  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Social Issues}  		2010. 2010 01643x. 66  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Weinreich ()]{b64}\label{b64} 	 		‘Enculturation', not 'acculturation': Conceptualising and assessing identity processed in migrant communities’.  		 			P Weinreich 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Intercultural Relations}  		2009. 33 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Boski ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Five meanings of integration in acculturation research’.  		 			P Boski 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of InterculturaI Relations}  		2008. 32 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Adams ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{I Think therefore I am... I think? On the diversity and complexity of identity (Doctoral dissertation},  		 			B G Adams 		.  		 \url{https://pureuvtnl/portal/en/publications/i-think-therefore-i-am--i-think(116edc2c-22d1-457c-ac96-5114e}  		2014.  		 			Tilberg Universiyt 		 	 
\bibitem[Crocetti et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Identity styles, dimensions, statuses, and functions: Making connections among identity conceptualizations’.  		 			E Crocetti 		,  		 			L S Sica 		,  		 			S J Schwartz 		,  		 			T Serafini 		,  		 			W H J Meeus 		.  		 \url{https://doiorg/101016/jerap201209001}  	 	 		\textit{E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Clinical and Social Issues}  		2013. 63 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Anderson ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism},  		 			B Anderson 		.  		1983. New York, NY: Verso.  	 
\bibitem[Berry et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts},  		 			J W Berry 		,  		 			J S Phinney 		,  		 			D L Sam 		,  		 			P Vedder 		.  		2006. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  	 
\bibitem[Bennett ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Intercultural Communication (Extended Encyclopedia Entries in Multicultural America: A multimedia encyclopedia)},  		 			J M Bennett 		.  		 \url{https://www.idrinstitute.org/resources/intercultural-communication/}  		2018.  	 
\bibitem[Persikova ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		‘Intercultural Communication and Corporate Culture: Textbook.manual for schools / TN Persikov’.  		 			T N Persikova 		.  	 	 		\textit{Logos}  		2004. 2004.  	 
\bibitem[Remland et al. ()]{b53}\label{b53} 	 		\textit{Intercultural communication: A peace building perspective},  		 			M S Remland 		,  		 			T S Jones 		,  		 			A Foeman 		,  		 			D R Arévalo 		.  		2014. Waveland Press.  	 
\bibitem[Behning ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Intercultural Communication: An Overview},  		 			A Behning 		.  		2017. WITOS Berlin.  	 
\bibitem[Archibald ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Investigator triangulation: A collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research’.  		 			M M Archibald 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Mixed Methods Research}  		2016. 10  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mbori and Mulaudzi ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘Kiswahili and ethnopolitical Stability in Kenya and Rwanda’.  		 			O Mbori 		,  		 			P Mulaudzi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Studies in the language of Africa}  		2012. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kriegler ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{Kriegler and Waki Reports on},  		 			J Kriegler 		.  		2009. 2007. Primark Ventures.  	 
\bibitem[Etzioni ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Minorities and the National Ethos’.  		 			A Etzioni 		.  	 	 		\textit{Politics}  		2009. 29  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wright ()]{b66}\label{b66} 	 		‘More-than-human, Emergent Belongings’.  		 			S Wright 		.  	 	 		\textit{Progress in Human Geography}  		2015. 39  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rattansi ()]{b52}\label{b52} 	 		\textit{Multiculturalism: A very short introduction},  		 			A Rattansi 		.  		2011. Oxford: OUP.  	 
\bibitem[Lewin ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘National Ethos as a necessary factor in mobilizing for warfare’.  		 			E Lewin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sociology Study}  		2015. 5  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Halbwachs ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{On Collective Memory},  		 			M Halbwachs 		.  		1951. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.  	 
\bibitem[Ang ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Provocation: Beyond Multiculturalism: A Journey to Nowhere?’.  		 			I Ang 		.  	 	 		\textit{Humanities Research}  		2009. 15  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lafromboise et al. ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory’.  		 			T Lafromboise 		,  		 			H L Coleman 		,  		 			J Gerton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychological bulletin}  		1993. 114  (3)  p. 395.  	 
\bibitem[Rudmin and Ahmadzadeh ()]{b54}\label{b54} 	 		‘Psychometric critique of acculturation psychology: The case of Iranian migrants in Norway’.  		 			F W Rudmin 		,  		 			V Ahmadzadeh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Scandinavian Journal of Psychology}  		2001. 42  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mertens ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		\textit{Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods},  		 			D M Mertens 		.  		2014. Sage publications.  	 
\bibitem[Bennett ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Revised Edition, Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Paradigms, Principles, \& Practices},  		 			J M Bennett 		.  		2013. Boston: Intercultural Press.  	 
\bibitem[Bujang et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{Sample size guidelines for logistic regression from observational studies with large population: emphasis on the accuracy between statistics and parameters based on real life clinical data. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences},  		 			M A Bujang 		,  		 			N Sa'at 		,  		 			T M I T A Bakar 		.  		2018. MJMS. 25 p. 122.  	 
\bibitem[Schlesinger ()]{b57}\label{b57} 	 		 			P Schlesinger 		.  		\textit{Media, the political order and national identity. Media, Culture and Society},  				1991. 13 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schuett ()]{b58}\label{b58} 	 		 			R Schuett 		.  		\textit{Concept of the State in International Relations: Philosophy, Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism},  				2015. Edinburgh University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Schwartz et al. ()]{b59}\label{b59} 	 		 			S J Schwartz 		,  		 			K Luyckx 		,  		 			V L Vignoles 		.  		\textit{Handbook of identity theory and research},  				 (New York, NY)  		2011. Springer.  	 	 (2nd ed) 
\bibitem[Wise ()]{b65}\label{b65} 	 		‘Sensuous Multiculturalism: Emotional Landscapes of Inter-Ethnic Living in Australian Suburbia’.  		 			A Wise 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies}  		2010. 36  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brown ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges European’.  		 			R Brown 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Social Psychology}  		2000. 200011. 30  (6)  p. .  	 	 (/12)30:63 0 C.O.;2-O) 
\bibitem[Ahmed ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality},  		 			S Ahmed 		.  		2000. London, New York: Routledge.  	 
\bibitem[Nesbitt ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		‘Swahili Creolization and Postcolonial Identity in East Africa’.  		 			F Nesbitt 		.  	 	 		\textit{Creolization and Pidginization in Contexts of Postcolonial Diversity},  				2018. Brill. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Oostendorp and Jones ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		\textit{Tensions, ambivalence, and contradiction: A small story analysis of discursive identity construction in the South African workplace Text \& Talk},  		 			M Oostendorp 		,  		 			T Jones 		.  		 \url{https://doiorg/101515/text-2014-0030}  		2015. 35 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Nasubo and Luvaga (2020)]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		‘TERRORISM AND THE [RE] CONSTRUCTION OF NATIONAL IDENTITY IN KENYA’.  		 			F E Nasubo 		,  		 			D Luvaga 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Education and Research}  		2020. July 2020. 8  (7) .  	 
\bibitem[Kenya ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		\textit{The Constitution of Kenya: 2010. Chief Registrar of the Judiciary},  		 			L O Kenya 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Saville-Troike ()]{b56}\label{b56} 	 		\textit{The Development of Bilingual and Bicultural Competence in Young Children},  		 			M Saville-Troike 		.  		1981.  	 
\bibitem[Durkheim ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{The Elementary Forms of Religious Life},  		 			E Durkheim 		.  		1912. New York, NY: The Free Press.  	 
\bibitem[Gebser ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		\textit{The ever-present origin},  		 			J Gebser 		.  		2020. Ohio University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Jasinskaja-Lahti et al. ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘The interactive nature of acculturation: Perceived discrimination, acculturation attitudes and stress among young ethnic repatriates in Finland, Israel and Germany’.  		 			Jasinskaja-Lahti 		,  		 			K Liebkind 		,  		 			G Horenczyk 		,  		 			P Schmitz 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal ofIntercultural Relations}  		2003. 27 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Yuval-Davis (ed.) ()]{b67}\label{b67} 	 		\textit{The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development: Critical Engagements in Feminist Theory and Practice},  		 			N Yuval-Davis 		.  		Wendy Harcourt (ed.)  		2011. London: Palgrave MacMillan. p. .  	 	 (Power, Intersectionality and the Politics of Belonging) 
\bibitem[Duyvendak ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{The Politics of Home Belonging and Nostalgia in Europe and the United States},  		 			J W Duyvendak 		.  		2011. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  	 
\bibitem[Hall (ed.) ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{The Question of Cultural Identity},  		 			S Hall 		.  		S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert, and K. Thompson (ed.)  		1996. London: Blackwell Publishing. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schwartz et al. ()]{b60}\label{b60} 	 		‘The relationships of personal and ethnic exploration to indices of adaptive and maladaptive psychosocial functioning’.  		 			S J Schwartz 		,  		 			B L Zamboanga 		,  		 			R S Weisskirch 		,  		 			L Rodriguez 		.  		 \url{https://doiorg/101177/0165025408098018}  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Behavioral Development}  		2009. 33  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Timammy and Oduor ()]{b61}\label{b61} 	 		\textit{The treatment of Kiswahili in Kenya's education system},  		 			R Timammy 		,  		 			J A Oduor 		.  		2016.  	 
\bibitem[Bhatia and Ram ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Theorizing identity in transnational and diaspora cultures: A critical approach to acculturation’.  		 			S Bhatia 		,  		 			A Ram 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Intercultural Relations}  		2009. 33 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bennett ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Toward a theory of pressstate relations in the United States-Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)’.  		 			W L Bennett 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Communication}  		1993. 40 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Flick ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		\textit{Triangulation in data collection. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection},  		 			U Flick 		.  		2018. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mallett ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		‘Understanding Home: A Critical Review of the Literature’.  		 			S Mallett 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Sociological Review}  		2004. 52  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ogbu and Matute-Bianchi ()]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		\textit{Understanding sociocultural factors: Knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students},  		 			J U Ogbu 		,  		 			M E Matute-Bianchi 		.  		1986. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kaplan ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		\textit{What can the concept of friendship contribute to the study of national identity. Nations and nationalism},  		 			D Kaplan 		.  		2007. 13 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fearon (1999)]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{What is Identity (as we now use the word)-Draft paper},  		 			J D Fearon 		.  		1999. Nov 3, 1999.  		 			Stanford University 		 	 
\bibitem[Noble and Poynting ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		‘White Lines: The Intercultural Politics of Everyday Movement in Social Spaces’.  		 			G Noble 		,  		 			S Poynting 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Intercultural Studies}  		2010. 31  (5)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
