MANIPULATION IN FOLKLORE:

A PERSPECTIVE IN SOME SISWATI FOLKTALES

By

REMAH JOYCE LUBAMBO

Submitted in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN LANGUAGES,
LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE
in the subject
AFRICAN LANGUAGES

at the
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

SUPERVISOR: PROF T. M. SENGANI

December 2019
 DECLARATION

Name: REMAH JOYCE LUBAMBO

Student number: 07371489

Degree: PHD

MANIPULATION IN FOLKLORE: A PERSPECTIVE OF SOME SISWATI FOLKTALES

I declare that the above thesis is my own work and that all the sources that I have used
or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references.

I further declare that I submitted the thesis to originality checking software and that it
falls within the accepted requirements for originality.

I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work, or part of it, for
examination at Unisa for another qualification or at any other higher education
institution.

SIGNATURE DATE 27/12 /2019

ii
 DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my beloved parents Nomah Malandule (LaMbatha)

and the late John Malandule,
as well as to my family and my future generations

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to many people who provided the necessary
support and assistance for the achievement of this study. It is impossible to
acknowledge every one by name, however I wish to express my sincere gratitude to
the following deserving persons.

Firstly, I would like to thank God the Almighty for providing me with strength,
knowledge and wisdom during the process of conducting the research for this study.
God has been my pillar of strength, source of power and my refuge even when things
took the wrong direction in my life. To God be the glory!

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Professor T. M.

Sengani, for his valuable comments, suggestions and advice throughout the journey
of this research study. I would also like to thank him for his endless tolerance and
attention in reading my chapters and providing me with helpful comments and
constructive criticisms. His enormous experience has helped to shape and improve
the quality of the study. Without his guidance, the completion of this thesis would not
have been possible:

Special appreciation goes to my husband Levi Lubambo and my children Nondumiso

and Musawenkosi for their encouragement, understanding, patience and support
throughout the period of this study.

My gratitude goes to my siblings Florah Mokoena, Magie Malandule, Duduzile

Mokoena, Vusimuzi Malandule and Esew Malandule for believing in me, and for their
constant support throughout the conducting of this research study.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to friends and colleagues in the
Department of African Languages, for their tireless support and encouragement. They
were a constant source of inspiration.

iv
 ABSTRACT

Owing to changes brought by modernisation, folktales and other folklore genres are
often looked down upon, and thought by many to be outdated. The aim of this study is
to explore manipulative behaviour in Siswati folktales. The study glanced at how
manipulation is used in folktales, i.e. the causes and key strategies used by
manipulators to manipulate their victims. The focus was on the conformism of
manipulation in folktales, to current practice of manipulation in different social
institutions, implication of manipulation, and how manipulation could be controlled.

The researcher used the qualitative research method to collect and analyse data. To
achieve the objectives of the study, data was collected from 28 folktale books that were
purposefully selected for the purpose of providing information to answer the research
questions. All data collected was analysed using ’Neuman’s (2000) Analytic Approach
whereby the Method of Agreement and the Method of Difference was utilised. Data
was categorised into different themes teased from the folktales for analysis.

Based on the findings of the research, it is evident that manipulation prevails in Siswati
folktales. Different characters are being manipulated in different settings using different
strategies and tools. The powerful manipulate the less powerful, the intelligent
manipulate the less gifted, and the rich manipulate the poor, while the knowledgeable
manipulate the ignorant. The research findings relate very well with the current
manipulative behaviour practiced by different social institutions and almost every
individual and society is affected. Furthermore, the research reveals that manipulation
can be curbed if current victims of manipulation decide to expose manipulative acts
and join forces to fight the manipulator. In this case, it is recommended that different
stakeholders from various departments join forces to fight manipulative tendencies that
prevail in different institutions and society as a whole. The present study may revitalize
the urge and the need to reconsider the study of folktales, since their themes remain
the same.

v
KEY TERMS: Community; critical discourse analysis; culture; discourse analysis;
folklore; folktale; manipulation; psychoanalytic approach; victim

vi
 SIFINYETO

Ngenca yetingucuko letiletfwa yimphucuko, tinganekwane naleminye imibhalo

yendzabuko seyibukelwa phansi, futsi itsatfwa njengemibhalo leseyendlulelwe sikhatsi.
Injongo yalolucwaningo kubuka ngeliso lelibanti imikhuba yekucaphata leyentiwa balingisi
etinganekwaneni teSiswati. Ngekucwaninga lokujulile, lesifundvo siphindze sabukisisa
kabanti kubakhona kwekucaphata, imbangela yako, emasu lasetjentiswa bacaphati
ekucaphateni labanye balingisi, kucatsaniswa kwekucaphata lokwentiwa etinganekwaneni
teSiswati naloku lekwenteka kulesikhatsi sanyalo njengobe kwenteka etikhungwini
letehlukene temiphakatsi, imiphumela yekucaphata nekutsi ingalawulwa njani.
Kulolucwaningo umcwaningi usebentise indlela yekucwaninga yekhwalithathivu
kucongelela lwati nekuhlutwa kwalo. Kufeza tinjongo talolucwaningo, lwati lucongelelwe
kutinga-nekwane letingema-28 letikhetfwe ngenjongo yekutsi titawukwati kuniketa lwati
lolutawuphendvula imibuto yelucwaningo. Lonkhe lwati lolucongelelwe luhlutwe
ngekusebentisa indlela ya-Neuman (2000) lebitwa nge Analytic Approach lapho
kusetjentiswe khona indlela yekuvumelana nendlela yekwehluka (the Method of
Agreement and the Method of Difference). Lwati lolucongelelwe luhlukaniswe
ngekwetingcikitsi letitfolakele khona etinganekwaneni kute luhlutwe.

Ngekwemiphumela letfolakele kulolucwaningo, kunebufakazi kwekutsi kucaphata

kuyenteka etinganekwaneni teSiswati. Balingisi labehlukene bayacashatwa etimeni
letehlukenenge-kusetjentiswa kwemasu netinsita letehlukene. Labanemandla bacaphata
labangenamandla, labahlakaniphile bacaphata labangakaphiwa engconvweni,
labanjingile bacaphata labamphofu, besekutsi labanelwati bacaphate labangati lutfo.
Lokutfolakele kulolucwaningo kufana ncamashi naloko lekwenteka etikhungwini
temiphakatsi kuletikhatsi tanyalo lapho wonkhe umunftu utitfola atsintseka
kulokucaphateka. Kwengeta, lolucwaningo luveta kwekutsi kucaphata kungacedvwa
nabacashatwa bangabeka emahlombe abo kudalula nekubika tento tekucaphata
nekubamunye kulwisane nemisebenti yekucashatwa. Kuloluhlangotsi umcwaningi
unconota kwekutsi baphatsi bematiko lahlukahlukene labasetinhlangotsini tonkhe
temphilo bahlanganyele ekulweni netento tekuchaphata letitse citsi saka etikhungwini

vii
nasemiphakatsini. Umcwaningi uyakholwa kutsi lolucwaningo lutawusita kuvuselela
lutsandvo lwekubuyisela kufundvwa kwetinganekwane ngobe tingcikitsi tato tisesenjalo
tiyafundazisa.

EMATHEMU LAMCOKA: Indlela yeluhlatiyo lolufaka ingcondvo; inganekwane;

kucaphata; lisiko; lohlaselwako; luhlatiyo lwenkhulumo; luhlatiyo
lwenkhulumo loluhlolisisako; temdzabu; umphakatsi

viii
 CONTENTS

DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................ iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... v

SIFINYETO ........................................................................................................................ vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 1

1.1 Background and development of Siswati as a spoken and written language ............ 2

1.2 Research problem ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Research questions ................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Research aim and objectives ..................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 Aim ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Justification of the study ............................................................................................. 5

1.6 Significance of the study ............................................................................................ 5

1.7 Theoretical framework................................................................................................ 6

1.8 Research design and methodology............................................................................ 7

1.9 Ethical considerations .............................................................................................. 11

1.10 Definition of key terms.............................................................................................. 12

1.10.1 Folklore............................................................................................................. 12

1.10.2 Folktale ............................................................................................................ 12

1.10.3 Manipulation ..................................................................................................... 13

1.10.4 Discourse ........................................................................................................ 14

1.10.5 Psychoanalytic Approach ................................................................................. 15

1.10.6 Victim ................................................................................................................ 15

1.10.7 Society .............................................................................................................. 16

ix
 1.10.8 Community ....................................................................................................... 16

1.10.9 Culture .............................................................................................................. 17

1.11 Structure .................................................................................................................. 18

1.12 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 20

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 20

2.2 Earlier South African studies of folktales.................................................................. 21

2.2.1 Mofokeng (1951) .............................................................................................. 21

2.2.2 Marivate (1973) ............................................................................................... 22

2.2.3 Scheub (1975) .................................................................................................. 23

2.2.4 Rananga (1997) ............................................................................................... 26

2.2.5 Moephuli (1979) ............................................................................................... 29

2.2.6 Oosthuizen (1977) ............................................................................................ 34

2.2.7 Makgamatha (1987) ......................................................................................... 36

2.2.8 Guma (1967) .................................................................................................... 37

2.3 Contemporary studies of folktales ............................................................................ 39

2.3.1 Masuku (2005) ................................................................................................. 39

2.3.2 Pottow (1992) ................................................................................................... 39

2.3.3 Dlamini (2000) .................................................................................................. 42

2.3.4 Van Straten (1996) ........................................................................................... 45

2.3.5 Lubambo (2015) ............................................................................................... 48

2.3.6 Ramagoshi, Maree, Alexander and Molepo (2007) .......................................... 53

2.4 Research based on other African folktales .............................................................. 54

2.4.1 Kabaji (2005) .................................................................................................... 54

2.4.2 Nyaungwa (2008) ............................................................................................. 56

2.4.3 Mota (2009) ...................................................................................................... 56

2.4.4 Finnegan (1970) ............................................................................................... 58

x
 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 61

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 61

3.2 Critical discourse analysis ........................................................................................ 62

3.2.1 Definition of Critical discourse analysis ............................................................ 62

3.2.2 Historical background of Critical discourse analysis ........................................ 64

3.2.3 Aims of Critical discourse analysis ................................................................... 67

3.2.4 Proponents of Critical discourse analysis and their views ................................ 69

3.2.5 Criticism of Critical discourse analysis ............................................................. 86

3.2.6 Rationale for Critical discourse analysis in this study ....................................... 91

3.3 Psychoanalytic approach ......................................................................................... 93

3.3.1 Definition of Psychoanalysis ............................................................................. 93

3.3.2 Historical background of Psychoanalysis ......................................................... 94

3.3.3 Aims of Psychoanalysis .................................................................................... 94

3.3.4 Proponents of Psychoanalysis and their views ................................................ 95

3.3.5 Principles of Psychoanalysis ............................................................................ 98

3.3.6 Criticism of Psychoanalysis .............................................................................. 99

3.3.7 Achievements of Psychoanalysis ................................................................... 102

3.3.8 Strengths of Psychoanalysis and its implication for the study ........................ 103

3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 104

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................. 105

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 105

4.2 Research methodology and design........................................................................ 105

4.2.1 Research methods ......................................................................................... 106

4.3 Research design .................................................................................................... 112

4.3.1 Population from which the samples were drawn ............................................ 113

4.3.2 Sampling ........................................................................................................ 114

xi
 4.3.3 Reasons for sampling ..................................................................................... 115

4.3.4 Sampling technique ........................................................................................ 116

4.3.5 Sample size .................................................................................................... 119

4.4 Method of data collection ....................................................................................... 120

4.4.1 Qualitative methods of data collection ............................................................ 120

4.4.2 Types of Data ................................................................................................. 121

4.6 Documents ............................................................................................................. 124

4.6.1 Use of documents .......................................................................................... 124

4.6.2 Advantages of documents .............................................................................. 125

4.7 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................ 126

4.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 127

CHAPTER 5: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS .................................................... 128

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 128

5.2 Analytic comparison ............................................................................................... 129

5.3 Summaries of folktales ........................................................................................... 130

Folktale 1: Ncedze (Fantail) .......................................................................................... 130

Folktale 2: Sitsa Imphungutje (Jackal the Enemy) ........................................................ 131

Folktale 3: Lohheyane (Hawk) ...................................................................................... 131

Folktale 4: Tinkhomo letimbili (The Two Cows) ............................................................ 132

Folktale 5: Imphangele (Guineafowl) ............................................................................ 132

Folktale 6: Inja nelikati (The Dog and the Cat) ............................................................. 132

Folktale 7: Sihhanya neligundvwane (The Wild Cat and the Rat) ................................ 133

Folktale 8: Imphungutje nelichudze (The Jackal and the Cock) ................................... 133

Folktale 9: Chakijane nebutulujane bakhe (Mongoose and his Trickery) ..................... 134

Folktale 10: Indlala Yemagundvwane (Famine among the Rats) ................................. 134

Folktale 11: Indlovu nelibhubesi (The elephant and the lion) ....................................... 135

xii
 Folktale 12: Logolantsetse netintsetse (The Grasshopper Catcher and the
Grasshoppers) ................................................................................................ 135

Folktale 13: Salukati lesaphekwa siphila (The old lady who was cooked alive) ........... 136

Folktale 14: Imphi yeLusoti netinkhukhu (Enmity between the Chickens and
the Hawk) ....................................................................................................... 136

Folktale 15: Lusoti netinkhukhu (The hawk and the chickens) ..................................... 137

Folktale 16: Logwaja nematfundvuluka (The Hare and the Wild Plums) ...................... 137

Folktale 17: Ngebulima beMphisi (The hyena’s stupidity) ............................................ 138

Folktale 18: Logwaja netingwenya (Hare and the Crocodiles) ..................................... 138

Folktale 19: Impungutje nemfene (jackal and the baboon) ........................................... 139

Folktale 20: Ingobiyane nengwenya (The Monkey and the Crocodile) ......................... 139

Folktale 21: Logwaja nendlovu (The Hare and the Elephant) ....................................... 140

Folktale 22: Sonkhofungane nagogo wakhe (Sonkhofungane and his Grandmother) . 140

Folktale 23: Lobuhle (Lobuhle) ..................................................................................... 141

Folktale 24: Tinyamatane ne Mphisi (The Animals and the Elephant) ......................... 141

Folktale 25: Chakidze neMpunzi (The Mongoose and the Bushbuck) ......................... 141

Folktale 26: Emantfombatane lamatsatfu (The Three Girls) ......................................... 142

Folktale 27: Logwaja nelibubesi (The Hare and the Lion) ............................................ 142

Folktale 28: Sikhova naTsekwane (The Owl and the Lightning Bird) ........................... 143

5.4 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 143

5.4.1 Theme 1: Ignorance of victims of manipulation .............................................. 144

5.4.2 Theme 2: Trickery of the strong and unwise .................................................. 150

5.4.3 Theme 3: Opportunistic manipulators ............................................................ 154

5.4.4 Theme 4: Manipulative revenge against the helpless .................................... 157

5.4.5 Theme 5: Persuasion of manipulation victims ................................................ 160

5.4.6 Theme 6: Using flattery to catch the victim .................................................... 163

5.4.7 Theme 7: Playing the victim ........................................................................... 165

xiii
 5.4.8 Theme 8: Power and control over the powerless ........................................... 169

5.4.9 Theme 9: Deception of the unwise ................................................................. 172

5.4.10 Theme 10: Impatience and manipulative consequences ............................... 175

5.4.11 Theme 11: Astuteness and situation awareness ............................................ 178

5.4.12 Theme 12: Bravery as a defense mechanism ................................................ 181

5.4.13 Theme 13: Weaknesses as the gateway to manipulation .............................. 183

5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 186

CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH FINDINGS ................................................................................ 188

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 188

6.2 Common causes of manipulation in folktales ......................................................... 188

6.2.1 Power abuse and power hunger .................................................................... 188

6.2.2 Jealousy as a causal factor ............................................................................ 190

6.2.3 Fame and recognition ..................................................................................... 191

6.2.4 Bribery and other false promises .................................................................... 192

6.3 Victims’ actions that promote manipulation ............................................................ 192

6.3.1 Ignorance of the victim ................................................................................... 192

6.3.2 Making impulsive decisions ............................................................................ 193

6.3.3 Becoming vulnerable to manipulation through inappropriate submission ...... 194

6.3.4 Disobedience as a causal factor for manipulation .......................................... 195

6.3.5 Impatience as the causal factor for manipulation ........................................... 196

6.3.6 Accepting invitations without asking for genuine reasons .............................. 197

6.4 Victims of manipulation in folk narratives ............................................................... 198

6.4.1 Leaders and followers .................................................................................... 198

6.4.2 Servants/helpers and masters ........................................................................ 199

6.4.3 The defenceless, helpless, poor and old as prospective targets

of manipulation ............................................................................................... 200

6.4.4 Character who displays stupidity .................................................................... 200

xiv
 6.4.5 Victims who do not listen or take heed of warnings ....................................... 201

6.5 Perpetrators of manipulation in folktales ................................................................ 202

6.5.1 Those in power ............................................................................................... 202

6.5.2 The knowledgeable ........................................................................................ 203

6.5.3 The intelligent ................................................................................................. 203

6.6 Strategies used by manipulators to get the attention of their victims ..................... 204

6.6.1 Using trickery as a strategy for manipulation ................................................. 204

6.6.2 Being time conscious when taking actions ..................................................... 205

6.6.3 Cruelty to and bullying of the powerless and defenceless ............................. 206

6.6.4 Perseverance as a strategy for manipulation ................................................. 206

6.6.5 Pretending to be life savers ............................................................................ 207

6.6.6 Assessing circumstances of the victims ......................................................... 208

6.6.7 Capitalizing on weak points to manipulate others .......................................... 208

6.6.8 Shifting the blame ........................................................................................... 209

6.6.9 Playing victim as a strategy to carry out manipulative acts ............................ 209

6.7 Settings that promote vulnerability to manipulation................................................ 210

6.7.1 Loneliness as a causal factor of manipulation ................................................ 210

6.7.2 Lack of resources and basic needs ................................................................ 210

6.7.3 Political constraints ......................................................................................... 211

6.8 Implications of manipulative behaviour .................................................................. 212

6.8.1 Loss of lives .................................................................................................... 212

6.8.2 Destruction of relationship .............................................................................. 213

6.9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 213

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 215

7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 215

7.2 Review of the study ................................................................................................ 215

7.3 Contribution of the research to the academic field ................................................. 223

xv
 7.4 Limitations of the study .......................................................................................... 225

7.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 225

7.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 227

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 229

APPENDIX: FULL VERSIONS OF FOLKTALES ................................................................ 251

Folktale 1. Ncedze (The Fantail) Thwala: 1995:22 ....................................................... 251

Folktale 2. Sitsa imphungutje (Jackal the enemy) Mavuso, M.P. 1993 ....................... 252

Folktale 3. Lohheyane (The Hawk) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55 ............................... 254

Folktale 4. Tinkhomo letimbili (Two Cows) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55 ................... 256

Folktale 5. Imphangele (The Guinea Fowl) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:61 .................. 258

Folktale 6. Inja nelikati (A Dog and a Cat) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:72 .................... 259

Folktale 7. Sihhanya neligundvwane (A Wildcat and a Rat)

Simelane & Thwala, 1991:75 ......................................................................... 260

Folktale 8. Imphungutje nelichudze (The Jackal and the Rooster)

Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992 :55 ............................................................. 262

Folktale 9. Chakijane nebutulujane bakhe (The Mongoose and its trickery)

Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992 :65 ............................................................. 264

Folktale 10. The Biggest Famine and the Rats Ndlela and Magagula 1994:08 ............ 266

Folktale 11. Indlovu nelibhubesi kuyadvonsana (Elephant and Lion pulling

against one another) Ndlela and Magagula 1994:23 ..................................... 268

Folktale 12. Logolantsetse netintsetse (The Grasshopper Catcher and the

grasshoppers) Ndlela and Magagula 1994:29 .............................................................. 270

Folktale 13. Salukati lesaphekwa siphila (The old lady who was cooked alive),
Mkhatjwa, Masoka, Maseko, and S Mazibuko. 2015:49 ................................ 273

Folktale 14. The enmity between the Hawk and the Chickens.
Shongwe, M, 1992:43 .................................................................................... 275

Folktale 15. Lusoti netinkhukhu (The Hawk and the Chickens) Bhiya, 1993:06 .......... 276

Folktale 16. Logwaja nematfundvuluka. (The Hare and the Wild Sour Plums)
Bhiya, 1993:30 ............................................................................................... 278

xvi
 Folktale 17. Ngebulima bemphisi (The Hyena’s stupidity) Bhiya,1993:47 ................. 283

Folktale 18: Logwaja netingwenya. (The Hare and the crocodiles.)

Shongwe, M, 1992: 59 ................................................................................... 285

Folktale 19: The jackal and the baboon (Imphungutje neMfene).

Shongwe, 1992: 29 ........................................................................................ 286

Folktale 20: The monkey and the crocodile (Ingobiyane ne Ngwenya)

Ndlela & Magagula 1994: 58 .......................................................................... 288

Folktale 21: Logwaja nendlovu (The hare and the elephant)

Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55 ......................................................................... 289

Folktale 22: Sonkhofungane naGogo wakhe (Sonkhofungane and his grandmother)

Ndlela and Magagula 1994:42 ...................................................................................... 290

Folktale 23: Lobuhle (Lobuhle) Ndlela and Magagula 1994:14 .................................... 293

Folktale 24: Tinyamatane Nemphungutje. (The animals and the jackal)

Mkhatjwa, Masoka, Maseko, and S Mazibuko. 2015:49 ................................ 293

Folktale 25: Chakidze Nempunzi (the Mongoose and the bushbuck)

Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992 :65 ............................................................. 294

Folktale 26: Emantfombatane lamatsatfu. (The three girls) Mavuso, M.P. 1993 .......... 296

Folktale 27: Logwaja nelibhubesi (The lion and the hare)

Ndlela BMB &Magagula S M,1994 ................................................................. 297

Folktale 28: Sikhova naTsekwane (The owl and the Lightning Bird)
Ndlela BMB &Magagula S M,1994 ................................................................. 298

CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE .............................................................................................. 300

xvii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The word “folklore” is used as a generic term where traditional beliefs, customs, and
verbal art are comprehended. Folklore exists since time immemorial and consists of a
wide variety of genres such as oral lore, different types of artworks and written text.
Boswell and Reaver (1962:11) attest that the existence of folklore began as early as
mankind. However, the word “folklore”, the lore of the people, was not coined until
1946 by William Thomas after realizing that scholarly works on this field were
conducted under different names such as popular antiquities and popular literature.
Reaver (Boswell & Reaver, 1962) further explains that folklore represents what people
preserve in their culture by custom and word of mouth. He explains that the
geographical and historical depth of some of the surviving traditions is what gave the
study of folklore much of its fascination, because folklore involves ancient customs,
beliefs and literary forms not recorded in written form. As a result, every cultural group
has its own folklore, as folklore represents a particular society and serves as a mirror
that reflects the society’s philosophy of life.

Folklore is the traditional, unofficial, non-institutional part of culture. It

encompasses all knowledge, understanding, values, attitudes,
assumptions, feelings, and beliefs transmitted in traditional form by word
of mouth or by customary examples (Brunvand, 1986:4).

Siswati folklore is no exception to the above quotation; its folklore has been handed
down to younger generations by word of mouth to transmit knowledge, cultural history,
skills, and education in different spheres of life. Included in this folklore were folksongs,
riddles, folk games, folk dances, and folktales.

Irrespective of all the different genres attached to folklore, the study will glance at
folktales as part of the widespread and popular category of verbal art also known as
traditional prose narratives. Traditional prose narratives are divided into myths,
legends, folktales and fables. For the purpose of this study, the word “folktale” will be
used to cover all the different kinds of traditional prose narratives. These folktales were

1
 vital to emaSwati, since they were used to teach, warn, guide and instil knowledge and
culture in their children as they grew up. Makgamatha (1987:19) pronounces some
critical values of folktales as follows:

More than simply being used to validate folk belief and attitude, folktales
can also be used to exercise social control and apply social pressure on
those individuals who do not conform to accepted patterns of behaviour.

EmaSwati embrace folklore as an effective tool for teaching, alerting, warning and
instilling certain cultures. This is why folktales were preserved by handing them down
from one generation to another by word of mouth. The present research will use
folktales to see if the old methods can be used efficiently to alert and warn
contemporary citizens about manipulative behaviour taking place in various social
structures. The researcher believes that as a result of this investigation, the community
will gain knowledge and be warned to avoid manipulative practices from others.

1.1 Background and development of Siswati as a spoken and

written language

Siswati, like any other African language, predates the art of writing. It belongs to the
Nguni language group which is divided into the Zunda sub-group and Tekela sub-
group, under which latter group Siswati falls. Most scholars were not attracted to
Siswati as a language of research until 1976, when it was mandated to be the language
of teaching and learning in Swaziland.

As one of the former marginalized languages of South Africa, Siswati gained full status
as an official language in South Africa in 1996 and researchers gained interest in the
language in order to sustain Siswati as an official language.

Through the fast emergence of modernity, the narration of folktales started to

deteriorate. Young people today devote most of their time watching TV and engaging
on various social media platforms. The study under investigation seeks to explore how
manipulation takes place in folklore and will use critical discourse analysis (CDA) and

2
 the Psychoanalytic approach to provide possible answers that may reduce such
tendencies in the society and uplift the value and use of folktales in society.

1.2 Research problem

It was mentioned in the introduction that Siswati, as a language, did not attract many
scholars in the past. However, some research was done on the structure, performance,
and function of folktales, and more recently, on women characters and family settings.
As nothing has been investigated on manipulation in Siswati folktales, the researcher
embarked on this aspect, as it dominates the themes of some Siswati folktales and
may reflect more in real life situations. The study focuses on the reasons behind the
manipulation practised by some characters on others. In folktales, both big and small
animals take advantage of the ignorance of others whom they then manipulate for their
own benefit. The study intends to investigate what strategies certain characters use to
manipulate others, and when and why those who are manipulated remain ignorant for
life.

In discussing the cause of manipulation in Siswati folktales, and how it relates to

present day life, the researcher believes that it will help curb the behaviour that has
corrupted our social structures. This research will be guided by the research questions
discussed in the following section.

1.3 Research questions

The researcher acknowledges the changes brought by modernity whereby folktales,

including other folklore genres, are held in disdain or taken as outdated. The present
study may revitalize the urge and need to reconsider the study of folktales since their
themes are remain the same. The following research questions will be used to guide
the investigation:

What causes manipulation in folktales?

 Who are the perpetrators of manipulation in folktales?
 Who are the victims of manipulation in folk narrative?

3
  Which settings promote vulnerability to manipulation?
 What are the implications of manipulative behaviour?
 What strategies do the perpetrators use to get the attention of their victims?
 Do folktales maintain the credibility of reflecting reality?
 Can folktales be used effectively to help curb manipulative behaviour in
contemporary society?

1.4 Research aim and objectives

1.4.1 Aim

The aim of this study is to explore the manipulative behaviour that takes place in
Siswati folktales.

1.4.2 Objectives

To answer the research question and address the aims of the research, the researcher
investigated documented material and non-documented traditional verbal art as it was
practised by indigenous traditional society.

The following research objectives were used as stepping-stones to the research

answers:

 Investigate the presence of manipulation in folklore books;

 Observe the practice of manipulation in different social institutions;
 Investigate the causes of manipulation;
 Investigate the key strategies used by manipulators;
 Investigate the conformity of manipulation practised in folktales and
manipulation practised in real life; and
 Examine how folktales can be used to control manipulative behaviour in
society.

4
1.5 Justification of the study

EmaSwati communities are known for their practice of Ubuntu, i.e. respect, good
manners, kindness, forgiveness, helpfulness and reconciliation. In emaSwati
communities, folktales were used to educate, warn and instil knowledge and culture in
the younger generations.

Over time and the emerging of modernity, emaSwati heritage, morals, norms and
values deteriorated. Manipulative behaviour is currently practised in everyday life
where the privileged manipulate the underprivileged and those in power continue to
manipulate the less empowered. To date, no study has investigated this phenomenon
in African languages, especially in Siswati as a language. Manipulation is rife and the
good spirit of Ubuntu is being destroyed.

This study was undertaken to help people of various ages, different backgrounds and
different ethnic groups realize and be cautious of manipulative behaviour that may
affect them in a long run.

The present study will investigate the roots of these on-going manipulative behaviours
and provide ways to uproot the practice of manipulation through folktales. The
proposed study will help contemporary citizens to use folktales to teach moral
behaviour and control manipulation in different social structures. This study will reveal
that although folktales come from bygone days, they can be used successfully to
control certain behaviour. They can be a new wine in an old calabash. This research
aimed to prove that the content of folktales could still combat manipulative behaviour,
which is killing the good morals of contemporary society.

1.6 Significance of the study

The motive and importance of this research is grounded on the practice of

manipulation in folktales. Folktales are an important tool in teaching, educating and
imparting knowledge to the younger generation. It is one of the ways of instilling the
cultural values, knowledge and skills needed for a particular philosophy of life.
Proverbs, also used to teach and warn, are often contained in folktales; they have

5
 similar functional values to the society and cannot be ignored because the philosophy
of life of the emaSwati, as a traditional society, would be lost. Folktales are referred to
as the wisdom of forefathers, a commodity heritage to be carried forward to the next
generations. Folktales are rich in culture, Ubuntu and philosophy: losing them would
be tantamount to losing one’s identity.

The knowledge gap on the causes of manipulation was bridged by carrying out an
intensive and systematic study on the causes of manipulation in folktales. The findings
of the present study are expected to alert and warn the present generation about the
practice of manipulation as reflected in folktales and infiltrated into society, to indicate
how to recognize manipulators, and avoid being victims of manipulation even in this
new dispensation. Regardless of their age, readers of the thesis will benefit by knowing
how to avoid being robbed by others using manipulative strategies. Manipulation
strategies are used by political parties when campaigning, and by business people
through advertisements, and by some education institutions through fake degrees, and
by churches in various ways. Additional examples of manipulation are demonstrated
in money lending schemes, pyramid schemes, scams, and street beggars. People of
different ages and ethnic groups will benefit substantially from this study.

1.7 Theoretical framework

Besides the methodology and research design, there is a need for a researcher to
have a theory on which the research will be rooted. Theories and concepts play a vital
role in any social research since they help generate ideas, formulate and evaluate
hypotheses, and sometimes to build a theory. Most importantly, the Critical Discourse
Analysis and Psychoanalytic approach will theoretically underpin this study.

This study will employ Critical Discourse Analysis to analyse and interpret data
collected because it openly and explicitly positions itself without compromise on the
side of the dominated and oppressed group and against the dominating group. Further,
critical discourse analysis is a necessary tool for describing, interpreting, analysing
and critiquing social life reflected in text and talk (Van Dijk, 1993b:252). This will assist
the researcher in describing, interpreting and analysing text, talk and general social

6
 life as reflected in Siswati folktales. The study will emphasize the practice of
manipulation, which includes discourse as a tool, since people use the power of
discourse to manipulate others. According to Van Dijk (1998), manipulation is practised
in most areas of life and it is socially instituted. If people are unaware of the
manipulators, they become victims of the manipulators.

The study will also employ the Psychoanalytic approach, since folktales were created
in human minds and have motives. One has to analyse the folktale and establish the
intention of the narrator whether it be covert or overt. The Psychoanalytic approach is
the most known theory of motives. The proponents of this approach are Freud (1929),
Gellner (1985) and Frosh (2010). The theory recognises the influence of the study of
the mind that could potentially influence the mental functioning of the victims of
manipulation when they are manipulated. It also explains the “defence mechanism”,
and why an individual may react differently to similar situations. These theories will be
given much attention and be discussed intensively in Chapter 3.

1.8 Research design and methodology

The focus of this study is to analyse and explore manipulation in folklore with special
reference to some Siswati folktales. Siswati folktales were selected and analysed using
qualitative methods to detect manipulation as practised by folktale characters. This
research did not make use of numerical data or numbers, as the research under
investigation was grounded in qualitative research – a systematic and subjective
approach was used to describe life experiences and to give them meaning.

The qualitative method was used because the study is content bound, informative and
based on documented resources. This research approach will give the researcher
more access to the subjective meaning of people’s words in documents (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2005:143).

For any research to develop well, it should have a design, i.e. a plan that gives direction
to the research, which consists of the population, sampling techniques, data collection
and data analysis.

7
One of the first tools used in this study was the population. McMillan and Schumacher
(2010:5) describe “population” as a group of individuals or events from which a sample
is drawn and from which research results can be generalised. In this research, the
population was selected from folktales that depict manipulation practices. Research
results were generalised from the sample of folktales.

Sampling is described by Seal (2004:510) “as the selection of units of analysis for
study from a population” while McMillan and Schumacher (2010) describe it as “the
group of subjects from which data are collected, often representatives of a specific
population”. Both scholars agree that a sample is selected from a specific group and
that it represents that particular population. There are different sampling techniques
from which a researcher can choose. The choice of sampling technique is guided by
the type of research, research method, method of data collection, and sample size of
the research. Probability sampling and non-probability sampling techniques are the
two major techniques used in research.

Even though there were a number of sampling designs on the table, the study did not
use all the above-mentioned techniques. Purposeful sampling/Judgemental sampling,
as described by Leedy and Ormrod (2005:206), was used as the sampling units were
chosen for a particular purpose and were truly representative of a population. This type
of sampling allows one to choose small groups or persons/sources who are likely to
be knowledgeable and informative about the phenomenon of interest. It depends on
the judgement of the researcher as to who can provide the best information to achieve
the objective. The researcher only goes to those sources who in his/her opinion are
likely to have the required information. This sampling design enabled the researcher
to get information that answered the research questions. Sampling was done by
selecting folktales (i.e. the population) that portray characters with manipulative
behaviours. They were selected purposely since they contain information that is
needed to answer the research question.

8
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005:144),

Qualitative researchers draw their data from different sources, from not
only variety of people, perhaps, object, textual material, audio-visual and
electronic record, and the particular entities they select comprises then
sample and the process of collecting them is called sampling.

The researcher agrees with the views of the above authors, as data were collected
from different resources. Twenty-eight folktales that depict manipulative practices were
taken from a number of Siswati folklore anthologies for analysis. The content of the
folktales was analysed and interpreted to get the answer to the research problem. The
selected folktales provided the following relevant information:

 What causes manipulation in folktales?

 Who are the perpetrators of manipulation in folktales?
 Who are the victims of manipulation in folk narrative?
 Which settings promote vulnerability to manipulation?
 What are the implications of manipulative behaviour?
 What strategies do the perpetrators use to get the attention of their victims?
 Do folktales reflect reality?
 Can folktales be used effectively to help curb manipulative behaviour in
contemporary society?

The following folktales were selected from the various folklore anthologies:

 Ncedze (Thwala,1995:22)
 Sitsa imphungutje (Mavuso, 1993:35)
 Lohheyane (Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55)
 Tinkhomo letimbili (Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55)
 Imphangele (Simelane & Thwala, 1991:61)
 Inja nelikati Simelane & Thwala, 1991:72)
 Sihhanya neligundvwane (Simelane & Thwala, 1991:75)
 Imphungutje nelichudze (Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992:55)
 Chakijane nebutulujane bakhe Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992:65)

9
  Indlala Yemagundvwane (Ndlela & Magagula, 1994:8)
 Indlovu nelibhubesi kuyadvonsana (Ndlela & Magagula. 1994:23)
 Logolantsetse netintsetse (Ndlela & Magagula, 1994:29)
 Salukati lesaphekwa siphila (Mkhatshwa et al., 2015:49)
 Imphi yeLusoti netinkhukhu (Shongwe, 1992:43)
 Lusoti netinkhukhu (Bhiya, 1993:06)
 Logwaja nematfundvuluka (Bhiya, 1993:30)
 Ngebulima bemphisi (Bhiya, 1993:47)
 Logwaja netingwenya (Shongwe, 1992:59)
 IMphungutje neMfene (Shongwe, 1992:29)
 Ingobiyane ne Ngwenya Ndlela & Magagula, 1994:58)
 Logwaja nendlovu (Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55)
 Sonkhofungane naGogo wakhe (Ndlela & Magagula, 1994:42)
 Lobuhle (Ndlela & Magagula, 1994:14)
 Tinyamatane Nemphungutje (Mkhatshwa et al., 2015:49)
 Chakidze Nempunzi (Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992:65)
 Emantfombatane lamatsatfu (Mavuso, 1993:16)
 Logwaja nelibhubesi (Ndlela & Magagula,1994:29)
 Sikhova naTsekwane (Ndlela &Magagula,1994:54)

Both primary and secondary sources were consulted. The researcher gathered
information from various books on Siswati folklore, written and recorded sources and
by observation.

At the end of the process, the data were categorised, analysed and interpreted.
According to Neuman (2000:427), data analysis is a search for patterns, recurrent
behaviours, objects or a body of knowledge in collected data in order to identify,
interpreted in terms of a theory or a setting in which it occurs. The data analysis was
done according to Neuman’s (2000) Analytic Comparison that focuses on the method
of differences and method of similarities (or agreement). He describes the method of
agreement as a method that focuses on what is common across the case and tries to
locate the common cause. After identifying the common cause, the researcher

10
 eliminated features as far as possible because if they are not shared across cases that
have common outcomes, they are identified as casual factors. In the method of
difference, the researcher pinpoints features whereby a set of cases are similar with
regards to casual features and another set whereby they differ on outcomes and
casual features.

The above methods benefited the researcher in searching for the cause and outcomes
of manipulative behaviour by reinforcing information from both negative and positive
cases (Neuman, 2000:427).

1.9 Ethical considerations

McMillan and Schumacher (2006:142) indicate that ethics generally entails dealing
with beliefs about what is right or wrong, proper or improper, good or bad. Therefore,
it is necessary for a researcher to consider the implications of the research undertaken
and to be responsible for the ethical standards to which the study adheres. The
investigator should also be as open and honest as possible with the subjects in order
to promote ethical standards and values.

The present research is not based on human subjects for data collection. Instead, it
will focus on text documents as the main source of data collection. The researcher
adhered to UNISA’s ethics on plagiarism, which is aligned to Leedy and Ormrod
(2005:102), who advocate giving appropriate credits where credit is due, i.e. any
use of another person’s idea or words demands full acknowledgement otherwise it
constitutes plagiarism or document theft.

As stated in the above paragraph, the researcher acknowledged other people’‘s

ideas, thoughts or words. All documents used for data collection and general
research information were cited accordingly.

11
1.10 Definition of key terms

1.10.1 Folklore

According to Olrik (1992:2), folklore is information handed down from generation to

generation in a certain definite form, such as in verse (poem, jingle, melody, proverb,
and riddles), prose (narratives), play, and custom. In a broader sense, folklore
comprises every customary practice within the non-book learned classes of society.
Nkonki (1968) describes folklore or traditional lore as:

The unwritten body of diffused knowledge of the people that functions in

complete absence of extraneous influence, which belongs to many
preceding generations and has been kept fresh and handed down from
one generation to the next by word of mouth in a variety of forms.

Finnegan (1970:14) defines folklore as knowledge, which is passed down word for
word from generation to generation and thus reproduced verbatim from memory
throughout the centuries; or alternatively as oral literature, which is something that
arises communally, from the people or the folk as a whole so that there can be no
question of individual authorship or originality.

Finnegan (1970:317) adds that folklore is a term to describe the supposed customs,
beliefs and culture of both early man and his presumed equivalents today. According
to Brunvand, (1986:4), folklore is the traditional, unofficial, non-institutional part of
culture. It encompasses all knowledge, understandings, values, attitudes,
assumptions, feelings, and beliefs transmitted in traditional forms, by word of mouth or
by customary examples. Many of these habits of thought are common to all human
beings, but they may always interact with and be influenced by the whole cultural
context that surrounds them.

1.10.2 Folktale

Finnegan (1970:318) describes folktales as narratives handed down through

generations from the remote past, most probably in the word-perfect form. Similarly,
Nkonki (1968) refers to a folktale as a popular story handed down by tradition
fromgeneration to generation, which was told for the sake of telling a story. It is popular,

12
therefore, for its aesthetic value and for amusing the younger generation, and serves
to some extent to educate them in the art of speaking.

In the words of Bascom (1965:4), “folktales are prose narratives that are regarded as
fiction”. They are not considered as dogma or history. They may or may not have
happened, and are not to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, although it is often said
that they are told only for amusement, they have other important functions.

Dawkins (1951:417) defines a folktale as a story handed down by oral tradition “from
mouth to ear” among people who are generally illiterate, though not necessarily so, for
even in the academic world the stories are told from person to person.

According to Bascom (1965:4), folktales are prose narratives, which are regarded as
fiction, thus they can be set in any place and at any time and in this sense, they are
always timeless and placeless. He further distinguishes a variety of subtypes of
folktales including human tales, animal tales, trickster tales, tall tales, dilemma tales,
formulistic tales, moral tales and fables.

The researcher will follow Bascom’s (1975) definition. While all the above definitions
mention the methods of handing down from one generation to the next, Bascom (1975)
includes the important functions of folktales, which may lodge manipulation practices
and other behaviours, which offer lessons that may be acquired through folktale
analysis.

1.10.3 Manipulation

Chopra (2004) declares that manipulation is getting what you want by ignoring
or harming the desires of others. He further explains that manipulators use
charm, persuasion, coaxing, trickery, and misdirection to fool their victims. In
his foreword on manipulation and ideologies, Van Eemeren (2005: xi) gives the
following definitions of “manipulation”as] is the operation or handling of a
person or thing and the management or controlling of somebody or something
skillfully, especially by using one’s influence or unfair methods.

13
Chilton (2005:15) pronounces manipulation as “an act where the addresser manages
to get an addressee to form mental representation and to perform actions as a
consequence, without the addressee being aware of what is being done to her or him”.

Blass (2005:170) agrees that manipulation is a form of deception. She describes it as

an attempt to affect the target in such a way that his or her behaviour or action is an
instrument for attaining the goal of the manipulator, who acts without using force but
in such a way that the target does not know the goals of the manipulator’s actions.

1.10.4 Discourse

According to Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak (2011: 357), discourse is an:

analytic category describing the vast array of meaning making resources

available to us. It is a problem-oriented disciplinary research movement
subsuming a variety of approaches where each discipline has different theoretical
models, research methods and agenda. All the different approaches are united
by a shared interest in the semiotic dimensions of power, injustice, abuse and
political economic or cultural change in society.

Wood and Kroeger (2000:19) maintain that discourse is the term that covers all spoken
and written forms of language use (talk and text) as a social practice. They elaborate
and say that the term “discourse” is used to encompass both the idea of language as
a system of possibilities, and the notion of use.

In his definition of discourse, Wales (1989) includes all aspects of communication that
involve not only message or text but also the addresser and addressee and their
immediate context or situation.

Ojwang (1994:65) states that discourse, as a term, does not refer only to spoken or
written text, but also to the social purpose and the cultural context in which human
interaction takes place.

14
Gee (1999:123) crosses over to Critical discourse analysis as a theory that helps to
explain how and why language works the way it does, when it is put into action to
contribute in terms of understanding and intervention to important issues and problems
in some applied area. He further says that discourses are embedded in a medley of
social institutions, and often include various props such as objects, books, magazines,
buildings, words, symbols, deeds, clothes and gestures. All these, when used at the
correct time and in the correct place, transform into discourse.

1.10.5 Psychoanalytic approach

Frosh (2010) believes that the Psychoanalytic approach is a social critique that seeks
to expose power situations that rely on the denial of opposition and the pretence that
it is necessary to maintain existing patterns of domination.

Freud (1926) views psychoanalytic theory as one that explains mental phenomena
such as thoughts, feelings and behaviour, as the result of interacting and opposing
goal-directed and motivational forces.

Ernest Jones (1879–1959), as cited by Oosthuizen (1977:14), says that the

Psychoanalytic approach seeks to demonstrate the variations and subtleties possible
in the interpretation of fantasies. He further adds that this approach is highly
speculative and subjective in its interpretation of myths and consequently is dismissed
as a way of interpreting the folktale either consistently or accurately.

1.10.6 Victim

Mendelsohn (1956) as cited by Ahuja (2000:386) describes a victim as a person who

has sustained physical, material or moral damage owing to an unlawful act. He further
expands and differentiates victims into six categories as follows: completely innocent
victims, victims with minor guilt, “voluntary” victims as guilty as the offenders, victims
guiltier than offenders, the most guilty types of victims (such as an attacker killed in
self-defence), and simulating victims.

15
According to Wagele and Stabb (2010:124), a victim is a person who has been hurt or
taken advantage of, which most of us try to avoid. They further mention that this type
of person is deceived or cheated because of his or her own emotions or ignorance, or
by the dishonesty of others.

Quinney (1972), as quoted by Ahuja (2000:387), says that the victim is a social
construction in the subject–object relationship in a crime situation.

Khan and Singh (1980) in Ahuja (2000:387) state that a victim is a person who has
sustained psychological, physical, material or social damage on account of being an
object of depredation. He further explains that the victim is not necessarily an
individual. It may also be a collective entity like a family, a firm, a corporation, a group,
or even a whole nation.

1.10.7 Society

According to Ritzer and Ryan (2011:593), “society” refers to all forms of mutual and
inter-subjective communication in which the perceptions and behaviour of actors are
orientated to those of others. This may be specific others, such as family members,
colleagues, friends, rivals, enemies and authority figures, or they may be generalised
others, in the form of internalised expectations derived from cultural, moral, practical,
and communicative practices. They further say that these inter-subjective networks
can exist across a continuum between informal and voluntarily entered relationships
(such as friendship), through formal institutional interactions (e.g. work place and with
officials).

1.10.8 Community

According to Ritzer and Ryan (2011:74), “community” is concerned with people having
something in common, e.g. people sharing a geographical area or an idea captured in
reference to local communities.

16
1.10.9 Culture

Giddens (1997:42) defines culture as a people’s total way of life in society or in a

grouping in society. He adds that culture includes art, literature, paintings, how people
dress, their customs, their pattern of work and religious ceremonies, and furthermore
involves the accumulated habits, attitudes and beliefs of a group of people and their
total set of learned activities.

Ritzer and Ryan (2011:112) define culture as all socially located forms and processes
of human meaning making, whether or not they occur in specialized institutions and
whether or not they are confined to one clearly bonded group.

According to Spencer (1982:562), “culture” is a way of life that includes system of ideas
and customs that is passed on from generation to generation.

Kammeyer Ritzer and Yetman (1992:679) describe culture as the entire complex of
ideas and material objects that people of a particular society have created and adopted
for carrying out the necessary tasks of collective life.

According to Dahl (2000:10), the term “culture” is used to capture behavioural patterns,
art, artefacts and even the values, norms and practices of a particular community or
organisation. He explains that the word “culture” has its origin from a Latin word colere,
which means to build, to care for, to plant or to cultivate.

Malan (1985:8) describes culture as an expression of the ideas underlying man’s

interaction with the physical, social and spiritual milieus to which he adapts himself.
He further expands and mentions that the culture of a people should be studied and
understood against the background of the basic ideas or paradigms embodied in their
cosmology.

17
1.11 Structure

The thesis is structured as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction and background. As an introductory chapter, this chapter

outlines the background of the study including the background of Siswati as a written
language, the statement of the research problem as well as the aims and objectives of
the research including the research questions. The chapter further explains the
justification and significance of the study. The definition of terms and delimitation of
the study are also provided in this chapter.

Chapter 2: Literature review. This chapter presents a detailed literature review on

folklore and folktales and investigates the causes of manipulation as reflected in the
various sources that were consulted. The researcher used different sources, from
earlier studies to contemporary studies of folktales in different African cultures.

Chapter 3: Theoretical framework. This chapter discusses the theories that were
employed in this study in detail, namely, critical discourse analysis and
psychoanalysis.

Chapter 4: Research design and methodology. This chapter gives more information
on the research methodology, design and methods used to collect data. The chapter
also provides the methods of data analysis and interpretation.

Chapter 5: Data presentation and analysis. A summary of the folktales and an

analysis of the causes of manipulation in folktales is provided in this chapter. The study
used Neuman’s (2000) analytic comparison, which focuses on methods of difference
and similarities.

Chapter 6: Research findings. This chapter presents the findings of the study.

Chapter 7: Conclusion and recommendations. This chapter concludes the study by

providing the overview of the research study and suggests recommendations for
further research.

18
1.12 Conclusion

In this introductory chapter, the following topics were sketched: the introduction and
background of the research, which included the background of Siswati as a spoken
and written language. The statement of the research problem, the research questions,
aim and objectives were discussed in order to give the exact focus of the study. All key
terms were clarified and the methodology was outlined with all the processes of data
collection, data analysis and data interpretation.

This chapter is only the guiding platform for the research. Some of the issues, such as
the literature review, methodology and theoretical framework, will be discussed
intensively in chapters two, three and four respectively. The discussions are informed
by the breakdown analysis of this study, as indicated in the above paragraph.

19
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The previous chapter outlined the background of the study, research problem, aims
and objectives as well as the methodology of the research. This chapter discusses the
literature review on the research topic, which is Manipulation in Folklore: A Perspective
of Some Siswati Folktales. The main purpose of this chapter is to gain a broad picture
of available information related to the present study. In this section, the existing
literature will be reviewed so that the researcher may establish if there are other areas
to research, and more importantly, if what is being researched in this study really adds
to the existing body of knowledge. Kumar (2011:389) suppots this approach when he
says:

[A] literature review is a process of searching the existing literature

relating to your study research problem in order to develop theoretical
and conceptual framework for your study and to integrate your research
findings with what the literature says about them. It places your study in
perspective to what others have investigated.

It was mentioned in stating the research problem that many scholars have researched
folktales but thus far, no research on the topic of manipulation in folktales has been
conducted for Siswati and other African languages. Hart (1998:13) mentions that a
good literature review is a selection of available documents both published and
unpublished on the topic that contains information, ideas, data and evidence written
from a particular standpoint to fulfil certain aims or express certain views on the nature
of the topic and how it is to be investigated, as well as the effective evaluation of these
documents in relation to the research being proposed. The researcher therefore
consulted literature on African folklore and folktales respectively. Both published and
unpublished theses were investigated in search of information and ideas that
encompass information that may be supportive to the study.

20
2.2 Earlier South African studies of folktales

2.2.1 Mofokeng (1951)

In his dissertation titled A study of folktales in Sesotho, Mofokeng (1951) views

folktales from all three Sesotho language groups. Mofokeng differs from other scholars
such as Scheub, (1975) Marivate (1973) and Rananga (1997), who divide folktales
into categories according to subject matter before defining them. His study of folktales
is comparative in nature. The present study deviates from Mofokeng’s division
according to characters, as it focuses on how characters in folktales manipulate each
other and disregards the divisions between them. Moreover, Mofokeng discusses
other characteristics such as structure, characters and morals found in the tale. The
classification according to subject matter has a shortcoming, in that folktales displaying
multiple motifs may be classified under a number of different headings. However,
Mofokeng (1951) overcomes this by classifying such tales under headings to which
their dominant motifs belong. In his classification according to subject matter,
Mofokeng (1951) divides Sotho folktales into the following four types: animal tales,
tales about human beings, tales about supernatural beings, and mythological tales.
While the present study on manipulation did not analyse folktales according to subject
matter, it will benefit from Mofokeng’s division since manipulation is a product of
different subject matter in folktales

To support his division of Sesotho folktales, Mofokeng (1951) further defines them in
a summary and gives example of each type in all three Sesotho languages. He
indicates the differences and similarities found in similar tales in each Sesotho
language as well as variants in different versions of the same tale in one language.
This information is valuable, as manipulative behaviour will be investigated from all
categories of Siswati folktales.

In carrying out his comparison, Mofokeng (1951) adopts the historical/ geographical
approach and explains what folktales and motifs are found in African languages in
general and in the Sotho languages in particular. He illustrates his motifs in some
selected Sesotho folktales from various parts of Africa. Mofokeng (1951) presents
interesting details about some beliefs and customs in Sesotho tales. He uncovers the

21
relationship between one event and the next in the plot of most tales while uncovering
the reason why certain tales seem dull and uninteresting when related by one
storyteller and more interesting when told by another. Mofokeng (1951) further clarifies
the similarities between different tricksters including the occurrence and the
significance of the three-fold repetition in a folktale. Like Guma (1967) and Marivate
(1973), Mofokeng (1951) clarifies the part played by refrain in the whole story.

The current study investigates the presence of manipulation by analysing folktales

collectively with no particular attention to certain parts, such as refrain or songs.
Nonetheless, the present study has benefited from Mofokeng (1951)’s detailed
discussion of the similarities between different tricksters since tricksters are likely to
be manipulators of other folktale characters in Siswati folktales.

2.2.2 Marivate (1973)

In his thesis, Marivate (1973) reviews Xitsonga folktales and focuses on how they are
narrated, classified and analysed. His study is based on a synchronic approach and
emphasis is placed on delivery, form and content. Furthermore, Marivate (1973)
mentions that the important thing was not only the telling of the story but the
circumstances surrounding the actual telling of the story. This study does not dwell
much on story telling but on manipulative behaviour practised by some characters in
folktales. The researcher will also look at the circumstances surrounding the telling of
the story, but the focus will be on how characters’ use strategies to manipulate others
in order to benefit.

As mentioned previously, folktales are based in an anthropomorphic setting. Marivate

(1973) focuses on themes based mainly in the village life of the Vatsonga people
where good behaviour is expected; antisocial behaviour is not tolerated. The
researcher agrees with the above opinion, since this study is concerned with
manipulation in folktales, which is regarded as unacceptable behaviour by the
emaSwati. The emaSwati culture is also rooted in folktales. Good and bad behaviour
is reflected in a folktale; those who conform to the rules are rewarded, while those who
disobey the rules are punished.

22
Marivate’s (1973) research differs slightly from the study under investigation because
it focuses on form, content and delivery while this study explores how characters are
manipulated in folktales and how victims are affected in a social context. Marivate
(1973) further calls attention to folktales as a general measurement for accepted
standards of human behaviour or social customs. This is relevant to this study, as
Siswati folktales reflect emaSwati culture, which influences emaSwati behaviour and
equips people with the knowledge of how to face their day-to-day challenges.
Marivate’s research has benefited the present study for the reason that, in their
folktales and social mores, emaSwati have their accepted standards of behaviour that
may serve as measurements for manipulative behaviour practices.

2.2.3 Scheub (1975)

Scheub conducted intensive fieldwork among the amaZulu and amaXhosa with the
aim of recording folktale performances. His focus is with the performance of isiXhosa
intsomi (folktale) as a living, dynamic and always flexible art form. Scheub () claims
that the stories reflect real life situations. This argument is particularly relevant to the
current research, since manipulative behaviour is investigated in the present study as
it is depicted in folktales, since they reflect the real life situations of the emaSwati and
are used to curb manipulative behaviour. Scheub recorded thousands of amaXhosa
activities concerning oral literature. He describes the isiXhosa intsomi (folktale) using
the scientific tools of folklorists and looks at it through the eye of an expect analyst. In
his investigation, he brings out the importance of personal encounter between a
storyteller and the field collector, which deviate totally to the study on manipulation

Scheub’s performance of the intsomi cannot be separated from the words of the tale.
He describes it as a living art, a unique experience experienced mutually by performer
and audience. Besides performance, Scheub (1979) discovered that an intsomi
(folktale) has a number of features, structures and content that are part of the
traditions, cultures and customs of the society concerned. These are features such as
core images that are chosen to fit the pattern of function sequence in a move
appropriate to a storyline or theme that is projected through performance, following the

23
core songs, sayings and chants, transitional images and details, and interlocking
details. The features, structures and content that are culture-based and are part of the
traditions and customs of the society will however complement the present study as
the content, tradition, and cultures of the society will inform the study on the acceptable
behaviour expected from the emaSwati, and consequently expose manipulative
behaviour. The current study deals with folktales in text and how manipulation is
depicted from folktale performance, which makes it different from Scheub’s
performance-based study.

Furthermore, Scheub (1979) discovered that the art performance of intsomi and
inganekwane have their own specific problems. Each performer creates a work that is
cohesive, logical and pleasing since his audience can be critical of his performance
and take cognizance of the broad outline of recalled images as a narrative guide. He
emphasizes the importance of the artist being connected to his or her social
surroundings and holding the attention of her or his audience using metaphorical
images. Scheub’s view is that there are degrees of depth and breadth involved in the
art, from the simple movement of a character in action towards a climax, when children
make up an audience. The present study advanced from this information since Swazi
folktales are also performed and the features form part of the traditions, cultures and
philosophy of life of the emaSwati. Scheub’s inclusion of the environment, body
movement and language use of the performer is the same as Finnegan’s
expressiveness of the performer, but Scheub (1979), adds that the character’s actions
and ideas can be revealed through action, environment and body movement.

Scheub (1979), remarks that this kind of art form, characters, actions and even ideas
is revealed largely by means of body movement, music and songs rather than
expressed analytically and descriptively by means of words, as it is done in literary
work. The kind of character revealed in the performed form may enhance the present
study because, in folktales, manipulation is practised in different forms such as word,
body movement and sometimes songs to manipulate other folktale characters in
Siswati folktales. In addition, Scheub (1979) emphasizes that it is crucial to note the
material of composition which is the source from which the performer draws the raw

24
material with which he or she constructs the intsomi (folktale) images, as it makes it
possible to analyse the creative dynamics of the folktale (intsomi). In support of this
statement, he mentions the following two sources:

 Material external to the performer in time and space, organized, arranged

and controlled in performance, such as inherited traditions, the environment
of the performer, community and audience.
 Material personal to the performer, utilized in performance to give form to
inherited traditions, the milieu, the audience, the poetic use of language, the
performer’s body movement, the performer’s voice, and the performer’s
imagination. As an artist, the performer does not moralize openly and is not
didactic in an obvious way while the performer captures his or her audience
and appeals to the emotions.

Looking at the above paragraph, Scheub (1979) insists that the performance is
important and that an artistic performance is built on familiar co-images, the
arrangement of image sequence in dialectical relationship, the organization of images
set in a new and penetrating pattern, and the total objectification of the ancient images,
as they all give an individual work its uniqueness (Scheub, 1975:171).

The sources that Scheub (1979) uses to analyse performance in intsomi and
inganekwane namely, material external to the performer and material internal to the
performer, relates very well with the study in progress since manipulation practices are
manifested at certain times and in an environment conducive to the manipulator and
the source material internal to the performer. The poetic use of language relates
especially well with the artistic language used by folktale characters to manipulate
other characters.

Conforming to Pottow (), Scheub (1979) also considers the plot as an important aspect,
as it makes up a synopsis of co-images. These co-images include elements necessary
to the memory of the performer and it is only in performance that shape and form
become apparent. Scheub (1979) argues that the core image is just a mental picture
that includes nothing more than a formula that the artist recalls and seeks to express.

25
The present study did not dwell much on plot but rather recognized plot as an important
factor for manipulation to take place since it is a platform where manipulative behaviour
in Siswati folktales takes place. In this way, manipulative behaviour is displayed on a
daily basis.

Scheub (1979), distinguishes between what he calls storyteller and performers of the
isiXhosa intsomi art. According to him, the storyteller retells more sufficiently what he
or she remembers, but the performer is capable of complex performance in which co-
images develop (Scheub,1979:169.) For Scheub (1979), the skill of performance lies
not only in gestures and tone but also in the unique way in which the nuclear units of
the intsomi are manipulated. This also includes the audience as important people in
the performance.

Scheub (1979), is entirely concerned with performance and the oral literary aspect of
the tradition. He does not take into account the way in which this form becomes
apparent or the sort of pattern this form takes. In his investigation, Scheub (1979)
comprehends that folk narratives are a closed system and are rituals in a certain way.
He further discovers that folk narratives operate in a metaphorical kind of way. The
researcher agrees that narratives operate in a metaphoric kind of way and believes
that what happens in a folktale is a reflection of what is happening in a particular
society. The way in which folktale characters manipulate each other is a representation
of how people in that particular society manipulate each other.

2.2.4 Rananga (1997)

Rananga (1997) explores TshiVenda folktales and his focus is on their structural
element, looking more deeply into the transcriber versus the narrator. He investigates
problems caused by the transcriber when folktales are published in printed form. As
Venda folktales are part of folklore, Rananga introduces his research by giving a short
background on folk literature. Like other scholars, he agrees that BaVenda folk
literature comprises unrecorded traditional knowledge and beliefs of culture
transmitted verbatim from one generation to another. He further highlights that elderly
people narrated these BaVenda tales to the young with the aim of teaching the young

26
to remember and narrate. Consequently, the current study was enhanced by his
contribution, since Siswati folktales are also narrated by elderly emaSwati people with
the aim of teaching life skills and to instil the culture in the younger generation. This
study on manipulation used folktales to teach people the manipulative behaviour
displayed in Siswati folktales. Rananga’s research helped the researcher to attain her
goal of using folktales to teach and warn the society about manipulation, its
consequences, and effect on the victim.

Rananga (1997) further expounds that Vhavenda folklore represents what Vhavenda
people preserve in their culture by their custom and beliefs. In addition, Rananga
(1997) believes that the characteristics of Tshivenda folktales are oral in nature, and
are a body of verbal art. Like other African folktales, Tshivenda folktales are narrated
after the evening meal around the fire. Unlike other ethnic groups, folktales of the
Vhavenda were originally narrated during the winter when there was plenty of leisure
time for both young and old. Another reason was that because it is cold in the evening,
both sections of the family would gather in a cooking hut or outside the meeting place
around the fire. The present study did not dwell much on narration but rather looked at
the results of the narration of Siswati folktales and used the lesson to warn the listeners
about manipulation and curb manipulative behaviour.

Like Pottow () and Scheub (1979), Rananga (1997) also emphasizes the importance
of the narrator in the telling of the tale. He argues that the narrator should be artistic in
order to entertain his audience and she or he must be able to dramatize and express
sadness, joy, surprise and suspense. The current study did not focus on the
entertainment function of a folktale, but on the moral, as it informed the study about
manipulative behaviour and how to recognize and avoid being a victim of manipulation.
Rananga gives a brief background on the recording of folktales dating from 4000 BC.
He highlights that with the introduction of Western civilization, folktales were recorded
to preserve oral literature and were eventually printed. This was strongly criticized by
Finnegan (1970) who argues that oral literature will lose its originality and artistic
nature as a result. However, Rananga (1997), maintains that although these folktales
exist in written form for preservation purposes, they still attain their true fulfilment when

27
performed. The present researcher agrees with Rananga, as it encouraged her to see
if folktales can still be used to warn contemporary society about manipulation.

Rananga’s analysis of Tshivenda folktales is grounded on the transcriptions of

Lestrade (1942), Gavhi (1990), Maumela (1990) and Maumela (1987). When carrying
out his investigation, Rananga discovered that certain elements in the structure of
Tshivenda folktales are condensed with repetition. Whenever a tale repeats a motif or
element, the editor or transcriber had condensed the repetition to the extent that the
reader may no longer get all the elements in that folktale. According to Rananga
(1997)’s analysis, recording becomes a shadow of reality. When such a tale is
narrated, the audience is unmoved. He further highlights that in a condensed folktale,
repetitions do not follow the same fixed pattern, as transcribers do not condense
elements in a uniform manner. Trying to expand on the problem caused by the
transcriber, Rananga (1997) highlights that the transcriberought to translate everything
that is narrated by the narrator since he or she is not the originator of these folktales.
The consideration of condensation of some elements of folktales deviates from the
present study. In search for answers to the research questions, the researcher used
folktales as a whole, regardless of their being condensed or not, since the focus is on
the content and practice of manipulation displayed in folktales.

In analysing the structural element of the Tshivenda folktale, Rananga (1997) gives a
general outline of the structure of folktales as identified in different cultures and
extracts and elaborates on the structures applicable to Tshivenda folktales. To support
his analysis, some Tshivenda folktales were selected and analysed morphologically,
following ’Propp’s (1968) approach and that of his followers, such as Dundes (1980)
and Thompson (1964), who identified functions as occurring in a fixed sequence in a
tale. Of all the 31 functions discovered by Propp (1968), Rananga (1997) indicated
that some functions applicable to a certain culture may not necessarily apply to
another, and that there is a vast diversity on the applicability of Propp’s functions to
South African folktales. In his analysis of Tshivenda folktales, Rananga (1997)
discovered that all 31 functions are applicable to Tshivenda folktales even though not
all the functions may necessarily be applicable in a single folktale. Although Rananga

28
(1997) tried to indicate the applicability of all 31 functions, the present study did not
consider the functions for its analysis, since a morphological analysis is unnecessary
when investigating manipulation in folktales, but the moral lessons displayed by
folktale characters will be taken into consideration.

2.2.5 Moephuli (1979)

Moephuli (1979), in his Master’s dissertation titled Structure and Character in Cyclic
Folktales of Southern Sotho, made an intense investigation of folktales. His aim was
to investigate whether form exists in Southern Sotho folktales and, if so, in what way
such form relates to character in Southern Sotho folktale. In his research, he analyses
folktales with the aim of testing the applicability of Olrikian laws in Southern Sotho
folktales. In addition, he examines the characters and describes them in terms of their
actions in a prose narrative. Moephuli (1979)’s study is different from the present
research, however, as the discussion of form and character placed the researcher in
a good position to investigate the causes of manipulation in folktale characters, since
manipulation takes place around characters and is practised by characters.

Besides form and character, Moephuli (1979), provides a brief definition of folklore as
being more varied and complex, gives the structure of folktales from other cultural
groups, and reveals that folklore generally is occasionally similar in purpose and nature
to that of Southern Sotho folktales.

Like Guma (1967), Moephuli (1979), also made an effort to divide folklore into myths,
legends, fables, riddles, proverbs, lullabies, ballads, chants, blessings, retorts, taunts,
teases, toasts, greetings, leave-taking formulae, and folk speech (idioms). In folk
speech, he provides examples such as slang, Tsotsie Taal and Fanakalo. He regards
folktales as the widespread popular category of verbal art. Moephuli supports
Finnegan’s (1970:365) idea that there is little or no distinction between different types
of narratives, and clarifies that Sesotho folktales are not unique in regard to other
cultures. This is why some cultures and languages use a collective term for all prose
narrative, viz. for the amaZulu it is izinganekwane, whereas the amaXhosa call it
ntsomi, and in Siswati folktales, it is tinganekwane. The researcher agrees with the

29
use of a collective name for all the prose narratives, this is why she considered the
name tinganekwane (folktales) to investigate the cause and implications of
manipulation in Siswati folktales. Since the distinction is more or less similar in folk
narratives, Moephuli tried to follow a popular definition of these folk narratives. In order
to differentiate them, he divides them into myths, legends, fables, riddles, and
proverbs, which is similar to Siswati, the slight difference being that Siswati adds
lullabies, sayings, folk poems, clan praises and praise poems to folksongs as part of
their folklore.

Although manipulation can manifest in lullabies, chants, riddles, proverbs and other
categories of folklore, the focus of the present study was on different types of folktales.
Nevertheless, the information gained from other folklore genres was used to
complement the study in obtaining the research goals and in helping to revitalize the
urge and need to study folktales and other genres of folklore.

Moephuli’s research regards folktales as a widespread and popular category of

folklore. Moephuli discovered that Bascom’s term “prose narratives” corresponds with
the Southern Sotho “ditshomo” which includes legends, folktales, myths and fables.
He regards these four categories of folktales as related to each other in the way that
they are narrated in prose, in contrast to proverbs, riddles, ballads, poems, tongue
twisters and other verbal forms, and classifies Sesotho folktales as follows (1979: 56):

 Myths. Characters appearing in myths are mainly deities, cultural heroes,

and animals. Their setting is usually in some timeless world that appears
very different from our world of today.
 Legends. May be regarded as chronicles, generally dealing with the lives
and great deeds of various traditional heroes/heroines and /or kings.

30
  Folktales are prose narratives that are popularly regarded as fiction; they
include a variety of characters such as animals and human beings. No
deities are used as characters in this kind of prose narrative. Their actions
sometimes take place in a world set in strange times when things are quite
different from the world we know, and at other times the tales are set in a
world so similar to ours that one can pinpoint the localities of some episodes.
 Fables are described as animal tales with a moral lesson. Animals appear as
characters, talking and acting like human beings, though usually keeping
their animal traits and having as their purpose the pointing of a moral.

’’The current researcher’s choice of folktales for analysis included all four categories
depending on the availability of information needed to provide answers to the research
problems or assist in attaining the objectives of the study on manipulation. Similar to
Scheub, who discovered that there is no distinction between the four categories and
that they have one collective name, the researcher used the Siswati collective name
inganekwane to cover all of them. Comparable to Scheub (1979), Moephuli (1979),
regards characters as important elements because they give substance to the story
and as such, one can study their emotions, ideas and translate them.

Having tried to indicate the differences between the four categories of prose narratives,
Moephuli (1979), attempts to define another particular type of folktale, which is the
main concern of his study, viz. cyclic folktales, which he defines as “an aggregate of
traditional or fictional matter accumulated around some mythical or fabulous heroic
characters recurring in a cycle of stories”. To investigate manipulation, the present
researcher made no similar distinction between types of folktales but utilized them all
to establish why victims of manipulation are ignorant about the actions of their
manipulators and the practice as a whole.

Moephuli (1979), applies ’the epic laws of folk narratives, as propounded by the
nineteenth-century Danish folklorist Axel Olrik (1992), rather than a pure survey of the
types of tales occurring in South Sotho. Like Scheub (1979), Moephuli (1979) also
emphasizes the importance of storytellers. While not relevant to the study, the results

31
of their story telling nevertheless gave answers to the question posed in the research
questions as to why people are manipulated and the reasons behind the act of
manipulation. Even though Moephuli (1979), did not dwell on the functions of folktales
in the storytelling, he contends that storytellers need to keep strong stabilizing stories
intact. This serves as a meeting point where Olrik’s epic laws of folk narratives become
madatory. Moephuli (1979), applied Olrik (1992)’s epic laws to folktales that he
collected in the field and supplemented Olrik’s laws with Dundes’ functions or motif
terms, as also applied by Marivate (1973) to XiTsonga folktales forms, content and
delivery. He also used Scheub’s theory of core-cliché and expansible image.
Moephuli’s choice of cyclic folktales as a particular type of tale is based partly on
subject matter and partly on form. Tales made up of multiple motifs are classified under
a number of different headings, generally under headings to which their dominant
motifs belong.

Besides being preoccupied with rules and structure, Moephuli (1979), also
concentrates on plot, which he defines as the arrangement of events and action in a
story. Moephuli (1979), divides the plot into “The beginning”, which is always
introduced by a state of calm in which all the images are known, friendly and familiar.
He further states that the problem is also introduced in this phase. According to
Moephuli (1979), the hero is usually introduced at the beginning of the tale and some
activities in which he is engaged in are described while the middle is divided into (1)
complications, (2) climax and (3) denouement. According to Moephuli (1979), this sort
of division clearly figures the arrangement of happenings in a tale as a pyramid,
passing from tension, rising action, and complication, to climax. Moephuli (1979),
describes the ending as a steep almost abrupt decline from conflict to the calm and
closely bound denouement.

Moephuli (1979), believes that the plot is closely related to characterization and that
the two cannot be separated from the tale. He examines characterization in Southern
Sotho folktales as characters give substance to the fiction. It is through characters or
a group of characters that the story’s emotions or ideas are translated. Moephuli
(1979), illustrates characterization in Southern Sotho folktales by describing and

32
classifying individual characters according to their size, level of intelligence, and
power. Moephuli (1979), notes that the characters of birds and animals (both wild and
domestic) are given the attributes of human beings, and describes them according to
their characters as depicted in the folktale. Characters such as “Little Hare” are
described as a cunning trickster with a wily, lucid, logical mind; he is hard-hearted,
many-faceted and regarded as the “best” character in Southern Sotho folktales.

Moephuli (1979)’s description of characters informed the researcher on the strategies

that manipulators use to get the attention of their victims. Moephuli (1979), describes
Tau (the Lion) as a forceful character who uses brutal strength and roars with a deep
voice to show his anger. He stays in his sanctuary, ever-present to solve problems,
and shows mercy and tenderness to the weak and frustrated. The description of Tau
and his constant willingness to solve the problems of the other animals demonstrates
how a forceful character uses strength, power or authority to manipulate others in
social institutions. Moephuli (1979), describes most of the famous animals, such as
jackal, red hare, tortoise, baboon, hyena and birds, accordingly. Birds are also very
popular characters and usually appear towards the end of a tale to act as mediators to
save the victims from the villain or the hopeless situation. The researcher notes that in
Siswati folktales, birds also usually come at the end as messengers to rescue victims
of manipulation who were hopeless or ignorant. The study benefited from Moephuli
(1979)’s description of animal characters, since these animals are also used to reveal
manipulation in Siswati folktales, and reveal manipulative behaviour, strategies of
manipulation, and demonstrate the ignorance of some of the animal characters who
are manipulated.

Moephuli (1979), considers the names of characters very important since they highlight
the qualities of these folktale characters. The names of some of the characters may
therefore be regarded as a brief history or summary of the events in the tale. The
researcher did not pay much attention to the names of characters but the information
will benefit the study because some of the names are known to manipulative acts and
could be used as strategies for manipulation.

33
Moephuli’s aim is to prove the applicability of ’Olrik’s laws in Southern Sotho folktales
since these laws would control individual narrators, who merely follow these laws
blindly. According to Moephuli, these laws limit the freedom of composition of oral
literature, since, of necessity, the narrator must adhere to known characteristic details;
failure to adhere to these details indicates that the story is not traditional. Moephuli
(1979) utilized thirteen of Orlik’s laws and added another law by dividing the law of
opening and the law of closing. Not all the laws discussed by Moephuli (1979) were
utilized in the present study.

Moephuli (1979) successfully applied the Propp and Dundes type of analysis that
addresses form, content and delivery, to Southern Sotho folktales. That Marivate
(1973) did the same in his MA dissertation Tsonga folktales: Form Content and
Delivery and Scheub (1979), in The Xhosa Ntsomi, is proof that this type of analysis is
applicable to Northern Sotho, isiXhosa and Southern Sotho folktales. Although the
above scholars used these laws successfully, this type of analysis does not relate very
well to the present study; instead, critical discourse analysis and the Psychoanalytic
approach was used to discover some of the strategies used to manipulate. As
manipulation takes place in a certain setting, the researcher rather used some of the
laws to detect places in a plot where manipulation commonly takes place.

2.2.6 Oosthuizen (1977)

In his analytical study on folktales collected by James Stuart (1868–1942), Oosthuizen

(1977) concentrates on the structure of the isiZulu folktale rather than on its
performance and function. To guide his analysis on the structure of a folktale,
Oosthuizen (1977), like Marivate (1973), employs the same method of analysis as
Propp (1968), Dundes (1980) and Scheub. Oosthuizen (1977) outlined these theories
in giving a general picture of the folktale since the nineteenth century. Moreover, he
did not neglect other schools of thought with regard to the study of folklore; the
Diachronic and Synchronic approach were also highly considered by Oosthuizen
(1977) when analysing his Zulu folktales. However, the method used by Dundes (1980)
and Propp (1968)’ is the most appropriate and relevant to his study.

34
Oosthuizen (1977) discovered that the isiZulu folktale (inganekwane) has a fairly
complex structure as it is composed of emic as well as etic units. However, the
storyteller uses her or his own imagination to manifest the emic in terms of the etic.
Oosthuizen (1977) highlights that the structural features are those that give the
individual performance, as well as tradition as a whole, coherence and stability. These
structural features are the moves composed of function sequence or combination of
function sequence. Oosthuizen (1977) confirms that there are fifteen functions
applicable to the isiZulu folktale and names them “Initial situation, Lack, Lack
liquidated, Interdiction/commands, Violation/ Obedient, Consequence, Flight, Pursuit,
Escape/ Rescue, Unrecognized arrival, Recognition of a hero, Villain exposed, Villain
punished or any lack liquidation alternative position, Deceit, and Deception”.
Oosthuizen’s investigation differs slightly from the present study as emphasis is placed
more on structural patterns, whereas the present study pays more attention to
manipulation as reflected in some Siswati folktales. Oosthuizen 1977)’s study,
however, supports the present study in regard to his discussions on imagination and
balance between the structure and content. In search of the motives behind the minds
of manipulators in Siswati folktales, the study under investigation will apply the
Psychoanalytic approach incorporated with critical discourse analysis, thus employing
more listening and imagination skills to synthesize and establish the possible intention
of the manipulator. Oosthuizen further highlights that while not all possible functions
are found in each sequence, each function maintains its place in the function sequence
of an isiZulu folktale. Oosthuizen (1977) emphasized that some functions always occur
together and combine into function formulae. As an example of togetherness,
Oosthuizen mentions that there is no deceit without deception and confirms that the
two always occur together and form a function formula in an isiZulu folktale.
Oosthuizen (1977) adds that core images, which are the unit containing elements of
the folktale plot and character, are taken from the oral traditions of the society. In
addition, Oosthuizen (1977) remarks that a successful folktale must be composed of
core images that fit the pattern of function sequence in a move, i.e. the core images
must be chosen in relation to the structural framework concerned, which is why the
structural and semantic aspects are closely linked and interdependent. He further

35
stresses that there are core songs and chants or sayings embedded in the core images
that are also important elements in a folktale.

In addition to the core images and function sequence, Oosthuizen (1977) also
analyses the structural patterns in performance, touching on imagination, style and
individuality. Oosthuizen touches on the flamboyant production in which the storyline
follows, and recommends that the story line should follow a pattern or logical
progression where the artist must observe the balance between structure and content.

2.2.7 Makgamatha (1987)

Makgamatha (1987) investigates the form and structure of Northern Sotho folktales
and tests the applicability of some of the models of structural analysis. Furthermore,
Makgamatha sheds light on the embodiment of folk beliefs in Northern Sotho folktales.
Unlike Nyaungwa (2009), who divided folktales into myths and legends, Makgamatha
(1987) divides folktales into myths, legends and folktales, which relates very well with
the folktales that will be investigated in search of manipulative behaviour in Siswati
folktales even though the researcher will add fables as another category of the Siswati
folktale. Makgamatha (1987) mentions that folktales have social and spiritual functions
as well as being narrated for amusement and didactic purposes. The spiritual and
social functions of folktales that Makgamatha (1987) discusses inspired the present
study on manipulation. Since manipulation is practised in the society, it has an
influence on the spiritual and emotional being of the folktale character as well as on
real-life people in the society where the folktale is narrated. According to Makgamatha
(1987), Sesotho folktales incorporate moral lessons, such as discipline, conformity and
responsibility, to the young. The current study made use of the moral lesson of each
analysed folktale in search of methods of exposing folktale manipulators and providing
ways that can be used to avoid being a victim of manipulation. Moral lessons, such as
conformity and the sense of responsibility, were dealt with in detail when seeking
answers as to why victims of manipulation are unaware of the strategies used by their
manipulators to hook them.

36
Makgamatha (1987) employed a functionalist approach with the focus on the social
motive that lies behind the folktale and the motion that folktale can give the folklorist a
picture of the society from whence the folktale originates. Makgamatha uses this
school of thought to investigate folktales in a social context and demonstrates how
folktales satisfy the social and spiritual needs of a society, how they serve as a cultural
and societal reinforcement, and how they contribute to the maintenance and continuity
of the social group. Makgamatha (1987) further discusses the understanding of the
social context and setting of a folktale in the actual life of the social group in which the
folktales are told. The deliberation on the social context assisted the current research
on manipulation to link the social context and setting of folktales successfully where
manipulation is practised within the actual life of the emaSwati, where these folktales
are narrated.

Makgamatha (1987) concentrates on the classification of folktales while the present

study’s focus is on the causes and outcomes of manipulation in folktales.
Nevertheless, Makgamatha (1987) becomes relevant to the study when he delves into
spiritual and social functions as they are incorporated with the philosophy of life of a
particular society. The present study investigated the causes of manipulation between
the characters in folktales and how manipulation is reflected in the daily lives of the
emaSwati. The present study further identified the spiritual and social impact of
manipulation in folktales.

2.2.8 Guma (1967)

In Guma’s book (1967), “The Form, Content and Technique of Traditional Literature in
Southern Sotho“, his aim was to place on record, in a comprehensive form, all that
constitutes the traditional heritage of the Basotho from a literary point of view. In his
book, he deals with almost every literary genre of Sesotho folklore in which prose
narratives are included. To investigate manipulation in Siswati folktales, the current
study did not use all folklore genres but focused on Siswati prose narratives only. In
his first two chapters, Guma (1967) divides prose narratives into myths, legends and
fables. His division differs from Moephuli (1979), who divides folktales into myth,
legend, fable and folktale. The reflection of the division of folktales in Guma’s book

37
deviates from the division of Siswati folktales that were analysed in search of
manipulation behaviour in the current study. While the focus of the study under
investigation is not on the division of folktales, the researcher divides folktales into four
types that were analysed to investigate the presence of manipulation in folktales.
Guma (1967) quotes the Encyclopaedia Britannica in defining and analysing the
general characteristics of prose narratives in Southern Sotho, which are structural in
nature, as indicated in the typical introductory phrase and the fixed formula ending.
Guma (1967) did not dwell much on the main body of the prose nor on the story itself.
This is why other structural elements were not mentioned in his book. Nevertheless,
Guma, like Marivate (1973) includes examination of some elements such as songs in
the narrative and their purpose in the tale. Just as Marivate (1973) has included songs
that are common in Xitsonga folktales and their functions, Guma (1967) identifies
songs that are common in Southern Sotho folktales as follows:

 Songs that bring about a certain response

 Magical songs, regarded as sacred by the singer
 Songs of joy: the singer is joyful about what has been accomplished.

These types of songs serve as the summary of the events in the Southern Sotho
folktale.
Guma (1967) did not say much on the structural elements of a folktale but concentrated
on the linguistic features found in Southern Sotho folktales. To answer the research
question on the strategies used by the manipulators to gain the attention of their
victims, the present study utilized the information presented by Guma (1967) on
linguistic features, as manipulative behaviour can be manifested through other forms
of language, including songs. Hence, in some folktales, manipulators use the power of
language in talk or in song to manipulate their ignorant victims.

38
2.3 Contemporary studies of folktales

2.3.1 Masuku (2005)

Masuku (2005) analyses proverbs, folktales and praises to determine the extent to
which society expects women and girls to behave in order to be accepted as members
of society. She focuses on the stereotypes attached to women and analyses how
women were depicted in folktales, women’s reaction to culture, and the attitudes of
women towards marriage. Masuku’s (2005) study is slightly relevant to the present
study, as she also focuses on the sociological aspects in folklore. In the portrayal of
women, she uses the feminist and Levi-Strauss approaches to interpret her data, while
the present study on manipulation uses critical discourse analysis and the
Psychoanalytic approach to interpret the data collected from folktales that depict
manipulative behaviour. Masuku (2005) mentions that, Lévi-Strauss, as an
anthropologist and structuralist, focuses on the paradigmatic analysis of folktales that
not only reveals the structural content or storyline but also focuses on the sociological
aspect of folktales. Thus, Masuku (2005) highlights how women are manipulated by
the opposite sex just because they are women. According to Masuku (2005), most
women are not even aware that they are being manipulated; they accept it as the norm
and sometimes take it as a sign of love. The above deliberations helped the present
study to answer why some characters are manipulated, but stay silent and become
victims of manipulation for the rest of their lives.

Masuku (2005) also investigated the portrayal of women in other folklore genres such
as proverbs, which is outside the focus of this study. All manipulative information found
in idioms or proverbs were utilised as additional information to enhance the information
gathered in folktales, as some of the proverbs have their origins on folktales.

2.3.2 Pottow (1992)

Pottow (1992) undertook an intensive analytical study of isiZulu folktales. Her focus
was on special structures relating to families in an isiZulu folktale. Much attention was
given to family relationship in the folktale, since a family forms the basis of all social
interactions in the amaZulu culture. Contrary to the present study, Pottow (1992) seeks

39
answers as to why manipulation occurs in some relationships, families and other social
institutions. In her analysis, she explores the morphological structure of isiZulu
folktales dealing with families, unlike Oosthuizen (1977), who concentrated on the
structure of the Zulu folktale without specification of themes.

Following the morphological structure, Pottow (1992) analyses the cultural, contextual,
linguistic and literary features of these isiZulu family tales. She further investigates how
these features influence the tales in their text and performance and how they reveal
their deeper meaning and social function. Pottow’s investigation assisted the current
study as it also looked at the practice of manipulation from written texts to reveal the
social meaning of folktale manipulative behaviour as it is practised in a social context.

Even though Pottow’s (1992) research has its main emphasis on the specific structure
relating to the Zulu family, her contribution to the present study lies in her discussion
of the use of language in folktales. The creative artistic use of poetical language and
linguistic features in the story, viz. idiophones, idiomatic expression, proverbs,
interjections, diminutives, and repetition, benefited the present study in the use of
language by folktale characters, particularly the choice of words when characters plan
to practise manipulation in folktales.

In her structural analysis, Pottow (1992) bases her arguments according to the
methodology and terminology propounded by Vladimir Propp (1968) who identified 31
functions in Russian folktales. However, not all the functions proved to be relevant to
the isiZulu folktale, as folktales are culture bound. Pottow (1992), asserts that only 24
functions are applicable to the morphological analysis of an isiZulu folktale, in contrast
to Rananga (1997) who discovered that all 31 functions are applicable to Venda
folktales.

Pottow (1992) analyses the language used in the selected isiZulu family folktale texts.
She discusses the poetic qualities of the language used in the selected folktales and
the artistic creativity of the storyteller and emphasizes the importance of the narrator’s
artistic ability, since the poetic language influences the content of the story. Both text
and texture are developed by the artist’s imagination and creativity. Pottow (1992)

40
clarifies that the linguistic features used in each folktale depend on the individual
‘performer’s creative use of the language and his ability to use the poetic quality of
language, which includes the use of sounds, songs or refrain, idiophones, idiomatic
expression, proverbs, interjections to create excitement, economy of expression,
diminutives, and repetition.

Pottow (1992) argues that artistry can be achieved by blending all the linguistic
devices, e.g. the narrator’s artistic talent is revealed by the choice of sentences, words,
idiophones and expressions. In support of her argument, she cites Olrik’s law of
opening and the law of closing, which is used when beginning and concluding a folktale
narration, and discusses the law of repetition, as it serves to build tension and fill out
the body of the narrative. In contrast to Olrick’s laws, Pottow identifies the following
two kinds of repetition in an isiZulu family folktale:

 Surface repetition, i.e. where episodes are repeated in the same or similar
words.
 Deep structure repetition, i.e. when there are similarities in form or content,
as compared to Olrik’s basic repetition pattern.

The above laws are irrelevant to the current study, as its focus is not on the structural
analysis of a folktale but on the manipulative practices that are manifested in Siswati
folktales. As in other literary analysis, Potttow (1992) analyses the folktales looking at
literary features such as the development of a plot through the various stages from the
rising of conflict to its resolution. Pottow (1992) also considers characterization and the
techniques of naming characters in a folktale, the setting of the story, and the style of
the narrative as a whole.

Pottow (1992) indicates that the entire cultural-contextual elements reveal the deeper
meaning of the folktale text and their social functions. In maintaining family
relationships, Pottow mentions the importance of the social significance of the family
folktale and validates traditional customs and education as avenues for entertainment,
building up of ethnic solidarity, and moral instruction of children.

41
Pottow (1992) also made an interesting analysis of the themes in the isiZulu family
folktale, e.g. good over evil, marriage, life indestructible, virtues and vices. ‘Pottow’s
attempt to reveal folktale themes, such as good, evil, marriage, virtues and vices,
enriched the understandings gained in the current study in the investigation of folktale
manipulation from diverse themes and gave some insight into promotion or curbing of
manipulation, as practised in folktales and in real life, particularly in social institutions
such as families.

2.3.3 Dlamini (2000)

Dlamini (2000) in her MA dissertation’ The Teaching of Oral Literature in Swazi

Secondary Schools: A Critique, tackles folktales as one element of oral literature and
investigates the problems and challenges affecting the teaching and learning of oral
literature in Swaziland contemporary secondary schools. Dlamini (2000) is relevant to
the current study since, in her third chapter, she takes an ephemeral look at Siswati
folktales, which is what the current study focused on. She acknowledges that folklore
is a body of knowledge that incorporates people’s cultures, wisdom and civilization. In
her introduction, she gives an explanation of what oral literature entails and
acknowledges that oral literature was handed down by word of mouth from generation
to generation (Dlamini 2000:1).

In addition, Dlamini (2000) elaborates on the functions performed by Siswati folktales,

such as to reprimand, counsel, entertain, admonish, educate and guide the younger
generation on their behaviour, beliefs, norms and values. This relates very well with
the current study, since all the functions of the folktale best informed the study to
examine whether folktales could be used to control manipulative behaviour in the
society. ‘Dlamini’s objective being to critically investigate and evaluate the teaching of
oral literature in Swaziland secondary ’education, she further assesses the methods
of teaching used in the teaching of oral literature, with the intention of exposing the
flaws and providing solutions on how to retain this subject in the curriculum if
necessary. While the present study did not dwell much on teaching methods, the
researcher believed that discovering the flaws in the teaching of folktales and providing
solutions would be commendable to the present study and help provide answers as to

42
why people who are manipulated remain ignorant or silent during the manipulation
process. In an attempt to attain her objectives, Dlamini (2000) conducted an
exploratory survey of pupils’ and teachers’ attitudes towards oral literature.

Dlamini (2000) acknowledges that, traditionally, the emaSwati grandmother used to

tell the stories in the evening in the beehive hut to her grandchildren, who usually
gathered around the heat and listened spellbound to the wise grandmother telling the
story. As she told the story, the grandmother also educated them by introducing them
to the value system and organization of the family or society. From the narration of the
folktales, the audience learns its history, traditions and customs; the acceptable code
of conduct or behaviour; and their social responsibility. Dlamini (2000) further gives a
detailed account of the functions of folktales, i.e. for amusement, education, validation
of culture, strengthening of family ties, and ethology (Dlamini, 2000:30).

Dlamini’s information on the background and setting of folktale narration served as

additional information to the study, while the functions of folktale narration helped the
researcher answer the question of whether Siswati folktales can be used to teach and
curb manipulative practices in the society.

In her investigation of the teaching of folklore in Swaziland contemporary secondary

schools, Dlamini (2000) considers wisdom lore, where both proverbs and riddles are
discussed as the main themes. Referring to Guma (1967:176), Dlamini (2000)
describes wisdom lore as the voice of the ancient that speaks directly to his and her
descendants, counselling and teaching from his or her own life experiences.

Dlamini (2000) also discusses the functions of proverbs and riddles as amusement, as
imparting aesthetic value, educational value, summative value, reflective value,
normative value, and as oral poetry. Depending on the oral performance of poetry,
Dlamini (2000) is of the opinion that oral poetry comprehends the following values:
entertainment, communication, social values, historical values, political values,
religious values, educational values, as well as cognitive and conative values (Dlamini,
2000:43).

43
Dlamini (2000) defines proverbs and riddles and provides their different types. This
diverges from the present study, since manipulation was investigated in folktales only.
Although the researcher cannot deny that manipulation manifests in proverbs, riddles
and other categories of wisdom lore, the present study maintained its focus on
manipulation practices in folktales as part of the folklore genre. Wisdom lore can only
be utilized to support arguments on folktale manipulation, since some of the wisdom
lore is also used for communication in the folktales and some have their origins in
folktales.

Dlamini (2000) concludes that the overall attitude to oral literature is generally
negative. The root cause of this negative attitude is identified in teachers’ methods of
teaching, lack of teaching and learning material for folklore, and lack of motivation for
both teachers and pupils in exploring the language. She discovered that the
authoritarian method of teaching produces leaners who are rigid and passive, who
cannot question things, and struggle to master symbols, particularly as portrayed in
folktales and proverbs. They view oral literature as outdated, i.e. folklore is no longer
within the homogeneity of interest of today’s learners since they are preoccupied with
the advancement of technology and modernization. Oral literature seems to be non-
motivational to both teachers and leaners and less competitive in terms of economic
viability compared to other subjects. The current study benefited from this exposure of
negativity felt towards folktales as it aims to investigate and expose manipulation to
help many Africans and the emaSwati in particular, who are unaware of it.

In conclusion, Dlamini (2000) argues that attitudes relating to the teaching of oral
literature have a political, economic, cultural and educational dimension. These
different dimensions impinge on each other and generally result in many attitudinal
misconceptions that create a negative attitude at a later stage towards the teaching
and learning of oral literature in Swaziland’s secondary schools. As Dlamini looked at
contemporary approaches to oral literature, she discovered that even though some
aspects of culture transmitted through oral literature have positive aspects, not
everything in that culture is positive, e.g. subordination and denigration of women, the
character of power relations, and violation of human rights: these hamper the cognition

44
of children, repress them and enforce bad habits and customs. Dlamini’s research
informed the current study, as manipulative behaviour is rampant and realized in
subordination, power relations, gender issues, and the violation of human rights.
Dlamini (2000) recommends the use of contemporary folktales to reinforce
contemporary values, e.g. tales that present feminist outcry and protest against the
oppression and denigration of women. Lastly, she recommended that oral literature
education must be related to the real needs of both learners and the new global village.

Dlamini affirms that Siswati folktales should be told to young children to prepare them
for adulthood and social responsibilities. Dlamini’s research relates with the main
objectives of the current study because young people, adults, mothers and fathers,
both within and outside of marriage, and the community at large, can all be
manipulated. Dlamini’s research helped the present study to explore manipulative
behaviour practised by people of different ages, opposite sexes, and ethnic groups,
and as practised in the name of culture.

2.3.4 Van Straten (1996)

Van Straten (1996) made an intensive study of folktales, which she calls fairy tales, as
a literary genre possessing form and function. She analyses and compares certain
South African and European fairy tales that were transcribed from an oral source and
from indigenous storytellers, as well as from a variety of sources that range from Nguni
to Sotho traditions.

Van Straten (1996) selected and analysed folktales about children and ogres,
compared their form and content, and what role these folktales played in the
development of children. She is relevant to the current study by the mere fact that she
researches folktales. However, she focuses on stylistic fairy tales and those that have
children and ogres as characters, while the present study focuses on all four categories
of Siswati folktales and incudes human beings, birds and animals of all ages. The
research study also does not compare Siswati folktales with European folktales; only
Siswati folktales are analysed in search of how to curb the manipulation practices that
destroy the good behaviour of the emaSwati and those of other African cultures.

45
Van Straten (1996) employed the formalist ’stylistic analysis of the fairy tale advanced
by Luthi (1986) and Freudian psychoanalytic theory to describe the form of European
fairy folktales with particular respect to the way in which story motifs are treated. Van
Straten used Luthi’ (1986)’s theory to assess the value of fairy tales in the development
of a child. Moreover, her study gives an overview of society’s evaluation of fairy tales,
both conscious and unconscious, over the past two thousand years.

Van Straten’s (1996) research relates very well with the study under investigation as it
provides answers as to whether folktales can still be used as a teaching tool to control
manipulation in society. Furthermore, threw light on the study in terms of how the
emaSwati evaluate and value their folktales. Van Straten (1996) focuses on how fairy
tales’ function in psychological terms, and on how they have been both valued and
misjudged by society, and in education in particular, during their long history.

Like Guma (1967), Van Straten (1996) differentiated between fairy tales, myths, and
legends as follows:

 Myths deal with matters of belief, such as the origin of the world and its
natural phenomena, and with the great forces that rule the destinies of
human kind; they include religious beliefs loaded with dogma and moral
theory. These stories are believed and they form a structure of the entire
society.
 Fairy tales make no claim on belief and are smaller, wilder, and lighter, than
other types of folktales due to the particular abstract form. (Van Straten
1996:78)

Max Luthi’s stylistic analysis of the fairy-tale and Freudian psychoanalytic theory is
useful as a basis for comparison of certain South African and European fairy tales
because, while they are based on very wide empirical observations of form, they do
not omit the functions of a correlative form. This study of fairy tales also provides insight
as to why this particular art has persisted from very ancient beginnings right through
to the present. This informed the study’s enquiry into whether folktales still maintain
the credibility of reflecting reality, and could be used to eradicate the roots of

46
manipulative behaviour. Van Straten (1996) incorporated the Luthi (1986)’s stylistic
approach with the psychoanalytic approach to test how stylistic folktales reflect their
functions in psychological terms. Van Straten (1996)’s choice of the psychoanalytic
approach aligned well with the present study, which also employs the psychoanalytic
approach as incorporated with discourse analysis to analyse Siswati folktales – even
though these theories do not test how folktales reflect their functions but how
manipulators deceive the minds of their victims in Siswati folktales.

Van Straten (1996) applies Luthi’s stylistic criteria to a selection of South African
folktales selected to represent what Luthi would term “abstract fairy folktales”, i.e. they
are distinct from legends, saga, anecdotal tales, fables, trickster’s tales, etiological
tales, or migratory legends represented in various cultures from Zimbabwe to the
Transkei. Van Straten (1996) distinguishes the South African and European folktale
storytelling traditions. The European fairy-tale tradition is largely literary with a
preponderance of written text over those in oral circulation. The situation in Africa is
different because, in rural areas, folktales are still told in the time-honoured manner;
there is a numerous variety of tales in currency and they all enjoy equal respect.

In urban communities experiencing cultural transition, the oral tradition has largely
been lost with the breakdown of the nuclear family and of the small stable village
community, and to date there has been little attempt to replace this loss. In the literary
West, printed tales gained dominance over oral tales and were regarded as authentic
versions in the eyes of the public. In contrast, the researcher will try and analyse
Siswati folktales as they are told and written from an African context and not consider
the comparison. All folktales will enjoy equal opportunities of being analysed in search
of manipulative behaviour practice.

Van Straten (1996) also discovered that Western philosophy has the tendency to purify
tales in text and to authenticate a single instance of tale type, which is not the case in
African context. When van Straten compared European tales with their possible
counterparts in the African tradition, she concluded that there is no single tale that

47
corresponds with a European prototype, but that a group of tales bearing similar motifs
makes a more meaningful object of comparison.

For the purpose of comparison, each European prototype was set against a group of
African tales bearing recognizably similar motif and structure despite their being by no
means identical in form. Van Straten (1996) justifies the designation of the fairy-tale
“as a paradigm for the journey of the developing ego in the young child”. She further
confirms, that fantasy, specifically in fairy-tale form, plays a very important role in the
young child’s resolution of inner conflict, adaptation to the family, and hence to the
society. Like Dlamini (2000) and Lubambo (2015), Van Straiten (1996) admits that the
tale enables the child to develop cognitively, enhances ego developments in its many
facets, and can play a valuable and enriching role in the education of children today.
Unlike Van Straten (1996), whose focus is on the development of a child through
folktales, this study targets all ages and all types of folktales that have the potential to
provide answers to the research question on manipulative behaviour in Siswati
folktales.

Besides the differences found between Southern African fairy tales and European fairy
tales, Van Straten (1996) confirms that these tales have inner wisdom embodied in
concrete and memorable forms, and that wisdom must accompany the perilous yet
imperative journey of the psyche through the many transformations required by the
self, from infancy to middle and old age.

2.3.5 Lubambo (2015)

In the master’s thesis (2015) of the current author, The Role Played by Siswati
Folktales in Building the Characters of Boys: A Functionalist Approach, she explores
folktales and investigate how boys are depicted in Siswati folktales and how this
depiction may have an influence on boys in real life. That study examines the
relatedness of traditional and modern boys regarding behaviour, problem-solving and
general approach to life. Lubambo tries to uncover the value of folktales in
contemporary society with special reference to boys. Like Dlamini (2000), the
Lubambo (2015) research is relevant to the current study as it analyses Siswati

48
folktales from all four categories, but differs from the present study because her focus
is on folktales that have boys as main characters while the current study is not
exclusive in terms of gender and age, in folktales that contain the practice of
manipulation. The present study will benefit from the previous Lubambo’ study of the
function of folktales in building the character of boys, since manipulation is a matter of
character and may be revealed and curbed through the outcomes of the narration of
folktales.

In trying to bring more clarity to that study, Lubambo includes a short background of
the emaSwati and their folktales that mirrors the emaSwati philosophy of life.
According to that study, the telling and retelling of the story helps to share the culture
with the new generation, outline the morals and standards valued by the emaSwati,
and instil the culture of narration from generation to generation. She believes that the
lessons taught in folktales could be of benefit to modern boys as, for example, folktales
could indicate how to approach problems and complex situations in an acceptable
manner. As boys are members both of the society and of families, respectively,
Lubambo (2015) approaches folktales from a social context. Her research investigates
how boys are portrayed in folktales and how they, their families and the community at
large are impacted psychologically.

In her earlier study, Lubambo (2015) analyses folktales from the socio-functionalist
approach to establish how the emaSwati depict boys through their folktales. She
grounds her investigation on the functionalist theory as practised by both
anthropologists and functionalists. Durkheim (1980), Merton (1950) and Parson (1951)
were proponents of this theory, which was selected because of the relevance of the
functionalist belief that a society is held together by a consensus that everyone in the
structure holds the same norms; and all members of the society agree to work together
to achieve what is best for the society as a whole.

The abovementioned functionalists believe that social structures are important since
they denote more or less enduring patterns of social arrangement within a particular
society or social organization.

49
Social structure is very important in order to understand the meaning and motivation
behind social behaviour and the social system, because culture and values are
institutionalized. Lubambo’s deliberations in the choice of theory inform the present
study, as working together as a society has helped answer questions on which
situations help promote vulnerability towards manipulation and how members of a
society reach consensus on methods of controlling manipulative behaviour in the
society.

Lubambo (2015) selected nine Siswati folktales to help establish the role played by
folktales as a traditional tool for teaching and reinforcing cultural beliefs and taboos in
the emaSwati community. This links very well with the present study, which uses
folktales as a tool to reveal manipulative behaviour and provides methods to prevent
manipulators from dominating the society and ruining the good behaviour of the
emaSwati. Lubambo (2015) correlates folktales to traditional emaSwati boys and
investigates the role that folktales play in their communities. Lubambo (2015:56)
reveals that traditionally, when a baby boy is born he is celebrated and given more
attention than a baby girl since his future responsibility is to take care of the family, his
siblings, and the wealth of the family, including the cattle and land belonging to his
fathers. According to Lubambo (2015), Boys are expected to take the surname of a
particular clan and make sure that it is respected. Boys were monitored by the elder
men in the family and were taught various skills to prepare them to become men,
husbands, fathers, and respected members of the society. Boys would be regarded as
juvenile until they displayed manly qualities, such as assertiveness, fearlessness,
physical strength, energy, ability to confront danger, and exercise supernatural
powers.

Lubambo (2015) adds that folktales about boys reveal the qualities mentioned in the
above paragraph. Folktale number 1, Mfana sibili, reveals the boy as responsible,
assertive and industrious, while folktale number 2 reveals a wise, brave, intelligent,
energetic, wise and reliable boy with supernatural powers, who is a strategist,
protector, and provider. Not all qualities may be displayed in one folktale; instead, they
are displayed respectively in different folktales. Even though these good qualities are

50
displayed in Siswati folktales, Lubambo (2015) discovered that some boys do not meet
the expected standards, e.g. boys who are stupid, villainous or tricksters. However,
Lubambo (2015) accepts such characters, since the community needs to accept all
kinds of people. Lubambo (2015) did not dwell much on villains and tricksters, since
folktales treat them as outcasts. Boys are expected to be competent and to meet the
required standards set by the community; those who do not comply or obey
instructions, are put to books and those that comply are rewarded. The fact that
Lubambo (2015) provides information on villains and tricksters is of benefit to the
present study because tricksters and villains are the most active characters in the
practice of manipulation in folktales.

Lubambo (2015) utilizes qualitative research methods in her group and individual
interviews and text method. Unstructured interview guidelines were used to collect the
necessary data that were collected, recorded and transcribed for analysis. To observe
ethical issues, Lubambo (2015) requested all participants to sign a consent form and
explained that participation was voluntary. Lubambo (2015) discovered that boys in
folktales were able to overcome difficult situations and circumstances, such as fighting
and conquering monsters to rescue their villages, siblings and family members.

Besides drastic changes in modern communities with different societal problems, boys
can still be conquerors if they learn how folktale boys approached their traditional
monsters and apply them in a modern way. Boys can still be taught to be hard working,
trustworthy, committed, and to conquer all modern monsters such as drug abuse,
alcoholism, sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, lack of job opportunities, and peer
pressure. Modern boys can also learn to be:

 brave
 control their anger
 tackle problems on their own
 capable of thinking and using their minds wisely
 adaptable by using various strategies to solve different challenges in different
situations

51
  carers and protectors of their families and the community at large. (Lubambo,
2015: 90)

The current study benefited from the above discussion, since manipulation can
manifest in the fight against monsters. In Lubambo’s discussion, some of the boys
manipulated others in order to conquer their enemies and some were victims of
manipulation in the process of growing up.

Lubambo (2015) also revealed that the depiction of boys in Siswati folktales could have
a psychological influence on modern boys. The attributes of boys in traditional folktales
stand as an example to modern boys since the upbringing is not the same. Traditional
boys were raised by their fathers, or by their uncles if their father had passed on, unlike
many modern boys who experience the total absence of their fathers even though they
are still alive. Some modern boys are brought up by their mothers and grannies with
no father figure to learn from. According to Lubambo (2015), modern boys are not
prepared for manhood and fatherhood, not encouraged to endure pain, and not taught
not to cry if they encounter unbearable problems. Lubambo (2015) reveals that
according to societal perspectives, a boy who cries degrades his image as a boy.

Lubambo (2015) concludes that folktales can still be used as a tool for teaching boys
and young people and suggests that since traditional emaSwati boys were taught in
their age-regiments (libutfo), modern boys can also enjoy the benefits if modern
structures such as a boys’ forum can be formed. Lubambo (2015) suggests that
various departments, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Arts
and Culture, as well as the media, could assist in the recognition and development of
Siswati folktales. Lubambo (2015) proposed that even if teaching about folktales
differs, the narration and functions of folktales remain the same. Lubambo (2015)
believes that the above recommendations will assist listeners and narrators of folktales
to interpret folktales in a manner that corresponds with modern life.

52
2.3.6 Ramagoshi, Maree, Alexander and Molepo (2007)

In their article “The abuse of children through folktales”, Ramagoshi, Maree, Alexander
and Molepo (2011) looked at the possible role played by folktales in perpetuating
abusive behaviour. Ramagoshi et al. observe that child abuse in South Africa has its
roots in the myths and beliefs perpetuated by adults and pointed out that folktales are
a mirror of social beliefs, i.e. they reflect the thoughts and real-life traditions of a society
at a particular time and in particular, in Setswana folktales. According to them,
folktales’ portrayal of children provides insight into society’s attitude towards children.
Some ways that children were disciplined in folktales are regarded as child abuse in
contemporary South Africa. Five Setswana folktales were selected to help investigate
the challenges posed by clinging to certain beliefs and to discuss the implications of
the continued existence or survival of traditional beliefs in modern society, e.g. the
spreading of HIV and Aids because of traditional beliefs. The present study is not
concerned with HIV and Aids, but benefited from the article, since some manipulative
behaviour could result from children meeting the expectation of being submissive to
elders under all circumstances, and as a result contracting HIV and Aids.

Unlike Moephuli (1979), Lubambo (2015), and Marivate (1973), who divide folktales
into four, Ramagoshi et al. differentiate folktales according to cumulative tales, talking
beasts, humorous tales, realistic stories, religious tales, romantic tales and tales of
magic. While they distinguish abusive themes in the various folktales, they also
mention that folktales were used for instilling knowledge and good behaviour in
children and had a moral message. These views are relevant to this study because
folktales educate and influence the behaviour of children. In addition, the abusive
themes that Ramagoshi, et al. (2011) distinguish in various folktales may lead to
manipulative behaviour, since manipulators have a tendency to use words or rules to
force their victims, especially children, to do what they want for their own benefit.

In their discussion Ramagoshi, et al. (2011) distinguish the following as some methods
used to discipline children or force them to conform to certain rules that are abusive to
children:

53
  Physical punishment in order to become strong members of the society, e.g.
spanking, deprivation of basic needs, beating, injury through various means,
lack of protection against injury, and the deliberate taking of the life of a child
by an adult
 Sexual abuse, which includes broadly sexual practices and penetration
 Educational abuse, e.g. when a child is permitted to play truant repeatedly,
when there is no supervision of a parent or caretaker, or when a child’s
special educational needs are not attended to
 Emotional abuse (when a child is persistently ill-treated emotionally), e.g.
verbal abuse, humiliation, lack of affection, isolation and rejection
 Neglect, e.g. when a child is not protected against or is deliberately exposed
to danger, including inclement weather, is deliberately undernourished, or is not
given proper medical care.

The researchers agree that the abuse themes are common in folktales and fairy tales
and argue that fairy tales and folktales are natural sources for the examination of abuse
themes. According to these researchers, traditional storytellers have used terrifying
events to create the emotional experience of grief and abandonment, and the shifting
of blame to protect the reputation of prominent figures such as fathers, chiefs and
respected members of the society. This part of the discussion is relevant to the present
study since manipulators sometimes manipulate to protect their reputation or to uplift
the reputation of other respected members. Manipulators create events for their own
gain that emotionally terrify their victims.

2.4 Research based on other African folktales

2.4.1 Kabaji (2005)

Kabaji (2005) illustrates how the Maragoli folktales teach both men and women to
undertake certain duties. Kabaji’s main objective is to uncover gender-related themes
that ordinary Maragoli people derive from their folktales. He determines the overt and
covert attitudes and ideologies that the Maragoli folktales reflect and promote in
relation to the institution of marriage by examining how the biological differences

54
between men and women are presented and how these differences respectively
empowered or disempowered the sexes. He further identifies the power structure that
promotes gender roles that manifest themselves in the Maragoli folktales. His proto-
gender approach within the feminist theory focuses on dominance and subordination
between male and female. Kabaji’s investigation is relevant to the present study since
manipulation is close to power relations and dominance. Most manipulators use their
power to take advantage of a weaker target, such as women. Folktale manipulators
sometimes disempower others to empower themselves. The differences in marriage
and the biological differences between men and women assisted the study in
investigating manipulation in marriage and the manipulative powers embedded
between men and women. Kabaji (2005) believes that some concepts and values that
cannot be expressed directly are easily conveyed through the narration and
performance of a folktale, and through other cultural discourses and rituals. The
researcher agrees with the above statement, for it answers why folktale characters
remain silent about manipulative acts practised in their societies.

To analyse the Maragoli folktale, Kabaji (2005) utilizes critical discourse analysis and
the psychoanalytic approach because folktales are works of art and are created from
and about motives that are not revealed. This approach relates well to the present
study that also incorporated critical discourse analysis with psychoanalytic approach
when analysing documented resources. Kabaji is more concerned about the covert
and overt consequence of the Maragoli folktale. The researcher believes that
manipulation is often unobtrusive but through the narration of folktales, individuals and
society can benefit from folktale lessons.

Besides psychoanalysis, Kabaji (2005) also employs discourse analysis in areas such
as context analysis, narratology and textual semiotics. This method puts into
perspective the anthropological idea of text as “culture crucifixion”. Kabaji (2005)
mentions that most of the time, discourse analysis is related to the structure of
discourse and to broader social and institutional phenomena. Kabaji (2005) further
identifies how power relations are promoted in folktales, and approaches gender-
related themes from a cultural angle. This study benefited from Kabaji’s deliberations,

55
as it paid special attention to manipulation between the sexes, which can be practised
because of the power relation, and from the knowledge gained while reviewing Kabaji’s
research in both the use of folktales and the methods he applies to analyse his
Maragoli folktales.

2.4.2 Nyaungwa (2008)

Nyaungwa (2008) investigated the influence that folktales have on Shona novels. He
divides narratives into myths and legends, in contrast to Marivate (1973), who divided
the genre into myths, legends and folktales. For the purpose of this study, division of
folktales is not entertained, since the focus is on folktales as only one body of prose
narratives.

Nyaungwa focuses on aspects such as development of plot, setting and characters.

He suggests that folktales must be studied in their social and cultural contexts and that
a structural and functional analysis of a folktale must be made. This study is based on
folktales in a social context. Besides his classification, Nyaungwa (2008) further
emphasises the functional analysis of folktales, which made it relevant to the study
under investigation, since folktales are used to identify and expose the practice of
manipulation in a social setting.

Characters cannot be characters if there is no setting wherein the characters can be

located. The society plays a vital role in providing a setting where all social activities
take place. In this case, manipulation between characters would not be studied in
isolation but in a societal context, since manipulation is practised in a social context in
a particular setting where characters are involved. The day-to-day activities, customs
and cultures relate to the social structures of the particular society.

2.4.3 Mota (2009)

Mota (2009) examines how folktales contributed to the development of the people of
Angola. Angola was one of the countries colonized by the Portuguese government,
who marginalised African languages, e.g. the language of education was Portuguese,
not the indigenous languages of the people. Consequently, some people, such as the

56
Lunda-Cokwe, eventually lost their culture and identity. Mota (2009) reviewed
Chesaning (1991), who clarifies that animal characters are very popular in folktales
because they are easier to manipulate than human characters. Chesaning believes
that the manipulation of animal characters helps present events and situations as
vividly as possible, and regards animal characters as symbols or concrete
representations of particular character traits prevailing in the society. Trickster
characters assume a false personality to deceive other characters in a folktale (Mota,
2009:33). Mota (2009) helped the researcher to answer why some characters are
always victims of manipulation and unable to escape from the trap.

Mota (2009) summarises Lunda-Cokwe folktales and links them to the development of
the people of Lunda-Cokwe, thus affirming that folktales are a vehicle for the
transmission of the cultural heritage of the Lunda-Cokwe. In addition, Mota (2009)
observes that the telling of folktales is the only way the Lunda-Cokwe used to instil
knowledge and culture. This study is in line with Mota (2009), since the present study
also identifies manipulative behaviour in folktales, suggests a way of curbing this
behaviour by using folktales, and dwells on the contribution of folktales in educating
people about manipulative behaviour and its consequences. In support of how Lunda-
Cokwe folktales can be used to build personalities, Mota (2009) used the theories of
Propp (1928), Finnegan (1970) and Bourdieu (1982). Propp’s theory is used to analyse
the types of characters depicted in Lunda-Cokwe folktales, while Finnegan’s theory is
used as a model to analyse how the form, function, classification, opening and closing
formulae of Lunda-Cokwe folktales contribute to personality building. Bourdieu’s
theory is used to analyse development; that is, while the people of Lunda-Cokwe agree
that folktales are a vehicle to pass knowledge and general cultural heritage to the new
generation, they do not regard folktales as a resource component for nation building
or nation development.

Mota (2009) laments that development is largely measured by statistics reflecting

material wealth, such as production of petroleum and diamonds, as if they are the only
resources that can help develop the country. He pleaded that in order to develop
Angola, other forms of capital, such as cultural and social capital, should be

57
considered. While the above theories are not considered in the current study on
manipulation, they provide information on the building of personhood with folktales.
This affords the researcher more insight in fighting manipulative behaviour with
folktales in the hope that people will eventually be reformed, reconstructed and
developed. Mota (2009) believes that to bring about sustainable development and
national unity, a holistic approach to personality building as well as nation building is
required. Mota (2009) divides eight folktales into the categories of fantastic and
marvellous; fables; genealogical narratives; historical myths, legends, and social
folktales; sarcasm folktales; and message folktales. From the various styles mentioned
above, Mota (2009) found that while Lunda-Cokwe folktales have different moral
lessons, they are all used to build personality. He further confirms that the Lunda-
Cokwe folktales teach the community to live in constructive harmony with society and
stresses the importance of humility, honesty, and a skilful and sociable community.
This is relevant to the current study, since it assists the researcher to attain her
objectives of using Siswati folktales to curb manipulative behaviour in society with the
use of Siswati folktales.

Folktales discussed in ’Mota’s dissertation illustrate how the Lunda-Cokwe people built
the personalities of the next generation by telling folktales that established a cultural
structure. The current study illustrates how manipulative behaviour can be controlled
with Siswati folktales.

2.4.4 Finnegan (1970)

Finnegan (1970), known as the mother of oral literature, shares her concern about oral
literature throughout Africa in her book, Oral Literature in Africa. She stresses the
essentially oral nature of traditional African literature, the importance of performance,
and the impact of these two characteristics in folklore. However, she does not discuss
manipulation; instead, she touches on the important aspects that contribute to the
effective performance of folktales, such as expressiveness of tone, gestures, facial
expression, dramatic use of pause, rhyme, interplay, passion, dignity, and sense of
humour. The above factors benefited the present study in answering research

58
questions on the strategies and language used by folktale manipulators to gain the
trust of their victims.

Finnegan studied different forms of oral art in various African countries, particularly on
the performance and dynamic flexibility of oral art. Her ambition has been to see a turn
in the delivery that enhances its artistic effectiveness. This does not pertain to the
present study that aims to see a turn in the recognition of folktales by the society
through the investigation of manipulation practices in Siswati folktales.

Finnegan declares that the extent of this kind of improvisation varies between
individual performers and the kinds of genre. In her argument, she shows her concern
about the verbal variability of oral literature against written literature and laments that
many writers have overlooked the variability of oral literature.

Unlike the present study, which focuses on manipulation, Finnegan (1970), values
verbal art, since the performer of an oral piece is more involved in the actual social
situation than the writer is in the more literate tradition. The oral aspect is not entirely
lost. She further acknowledges that even in a society that is dominated by the printed
word, or in a fully literate culture, oral formulations can play a real part that is
unrecognized in the literary scene as a whole. Her basic standpoint is that oral
literature is the only type of literature that is characterized by particular features to do
with performance, transmission and social context with various implications. According
to Finnegan (1970), the particular talent of the performer is vital to the creation of that
performance, and the degree of the familiar balance between tradition and creativity
naturally varies with culture, genre and the personalities involved. Finnegan’s
expression of the important aspects of performance – where much attention was given
to expressiveness of tone, gestures, facial expression, dramatic use of pause, rhyme,
passion, and dignity differs slightly from Pottow (1992), who stresses the linguistic
features. Even though the focus of the current study is not based on performance, the
above deliberations have contributed much to the current study since manipulative
characters use all the expressive features to plan and practise manipulation in
folktales.

59
2.5 Conclusion

The chapter provides an overview of the most important literary material that inform
the study as a whole. The reviewed material was drawn from books, dissertations,
thesis and other scholars who have dealt with subjects related to the study on folklore
and manipulation in folktales in particular. The literature review divided the study of
folktales into earlier South African studies of folktales, contemporary studies of
folktales, and research studies based on other African folktales. Information on
manipulation was derived from various literatures even though they were not specific
to the topic of manipulation, due to the lack of scholarly research on the subject. The
information obtained from the reviewed literature assisted the current study in attaining
its objectives.

60
 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter dealt with the literature review. This chapter addresses the
theoretical framework upon which the present research on manipulation in some
Siswati folktales is grounded. This chapter focuses on Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) and Psychoanalytic approaches to literature as theories to guide the analysis
of the data collected for the present research: both these approaches focus on
unveiling hidden meanings of discourse in text and talk. The purpose of critical
discourse analysis is to analyse opaque as well as transparent structural relationships
of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language
(Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000:448). Critical discourse analysis will therefore assist the
ongoing study in the process of unveiling the hidden agendas in manipulative acts
found in Siswati folktales.

Discourse is institutional and therefore looks at both social structures and social
functions. The theorists believe that norms, values, culture, customs, traditions as well
as institutions form part of the elements which function together to address the
problems of the society and discourse. The psychoanalytic approach is used since it
focuses on the manner in which minds are trained to conform to certain situations.
(Craib, 1989:11). This will assist the analysis since most folktale manipulators play
mind games to manipulate their victims.

The study under investigation includes the society, since manipulation takes place in
the society and the functions of folktales are manifested among the members of the
society. The functions of folktales manifest themselves in all social activities performed
by different institutions, including cultural factors as well as cultural practices. Both
types of analysis employed in the current research are important, as they complement
each other.

61
3.2 Critical discourse analysis

As mentioned above, the ongoing research will employ critical discourse analysis
(CDA) to analyse data collected from various Siswati books on folktales, as this
approach seeks to unveil the hidden meaning of discourse, including the text. Critical
discourse analysis (CDA) connects language, discourse and social structure (Koller,
2008). Scholars like Blommaert & Bulcaen (2000), Koller, (2006) agree that critical
discourse analysis is in covering ways in which social structures discourse patterns,
relations and model take the form of power relations, ideological effect and cultural
practices. The present research also looks at discourse from the societal point of view,
therefore Critical discourse analysis assisted in the analysis of societal discourse,
especially that which has to do with power relations in Siswati folktales.

3.2.1 Definition of Critical discourse analysis

Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak (2011: 353) describe Critical discourse analysis as
a type of analytical research that primarily studies how social power, abuse,
dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the
social and political context. They explain that Critical discourse analysis takes an
explicit position and thus wants to understand, expose and ultimately resist social
inequality; that Critical discourse analysis is the site of struggle between the powerful
and the powerless; that Critical discourse analysis focuses on how inequalities are
produced and reproduced by discourse; and how they are legitimized (Van Dijk,
1993b:4).

Fairclough, Wodak and Meyer (2009) define Critical discourse analysis as follows:

Critical discourse analysis is a problem oriented interdisciplinary research

movement, subsuming a variety of approaches, each with a different
theoretical model, research method and agenda. What unites them is the
shared interest in the semiotic dimension of power, injustice, abuse and
political economic or cultural change in society.

Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak (2011: 353) identify different types of Critical
discourse analysis that may be theoretically and analytical quite diverse. They point

62
out that the Critical discourse analysis of conversation is very different from an analysis
of a news report in the press, a lesson or teaching in a class at school. Barkho
(2007:12) argues that Critical discourse analysis is drawn from the meta-theory of
critical realism, while Chouliarak and Fairclough (1999) in Cavalrho (2008) state that
Critical discourse analysis incorporates social theoretical insights into discourse
analysis and advocates social commitment and interventions in research.

Van Dijk (2006: 252) indicates that Critical discourse analysis requires a true
multidisciplinary approach and an account of intricate relationship between text, talk,
social opinion, power, society and culture. It is primarily interested and motivated by
urgent social ideas, which it hopes to understand better through discourse. According
to (Van Dijk, 2011), Critical discourse analysis is a problem-driven interdisciplinary
research movement that comprises a combination of approaches. Its research
agendas focus on power, injustice, abuse and political-economic or cultural change in
society (Van Dijk, 2011:357).

Scholars provide the functions of Critical discourse analysis to enable researchers to

make good decisions when undertaking analysis. Critical discourse analysis studies
relations and often-extended instances of social interaction, which takes linguistic
form.

The critical approach is distinctive in its view of the relationship between language and
society and the relationship between analysis and the practices analysed (Blommaert
& Bulcaen, 2000:449). Critical discourse analysis views the use of language as a form
of social practice, as this will inform the present study in analysing manipulative
practices as a social phenomenon. Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000) further highlight
that all social approaches are tied to specific historical and ideological context in which
social relations are reproduced and contested (Jank, 1997; Van, Dijk 1993b). Critical
discourse analysis incorporates a reflective aspect that examines the relationship
between the analysed and the practice analysed. Moreover, they would challenge the
reflexive focus of critical discourse analysis, claiming a factorial neutrally toward the
data during the analysis. These scholars add that critical discourse analysis offers a

63
different mode or perspective on theorizing and analysing applications throughout the
whole field. Van Dijk (1993b) acknowledges that there may be a more or less critical
perspective in diverse areas, such as pragmatics, conversation analysis, narrative
analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethno therapy or media analysis.

Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak (2011:353) assert that Critical discourse analysis
focuses primarily on social problems and political issues rather than on current
paradigms and fashions, since it presents an empirically adequate critical analysis of
social problems in a multidisciplinary way. Hence, the present research analysed
manipulation as a social problem encountered by the emaSwati community and as a
global problem. Critical discourse analysis tries to explain discourse structures in terms
of properties of social interaction, especially social structure, rather than merely
describing discourse structure. Critical discourse analysis focuses on the way
discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce or challenge power relations
and dominance in society. On the other hand, McGregor (2003:68) pronounces that
even though there is an increase in the prevalence of discourse, it does not mean that
scholars have developed a unified approach to Discourse Analysis or even a unified
definition of discourse. For this reason, the researcher used all the definitions and
functions of Critical discourse analysis mentioned by the different scholars to inform
the analysis of data collected (Van Dijk, 1993b).

3.2.2 Historical background of Critical discourse analysis

According to Van Dijk, (2011:1), Critical discourse analysis dates back to ancient
rhetoric discourse studies where it was generally identified as the art of speaking well.
He adds that enlightened philosophers were the first to use the term “critical”. During
those times, it was a term mostly associated with impartial knowledge of the youth who
had to be nurtured to become future rhetoricians. Aristotle is often singled out as one
who has made a significant contribution to discourse analysis in particular. Cockcroft
and Cockcroft (2005) concur when they deliberate that Aristotle’s three proof of ethos,
pathos and logos did not only leave a mark on critical analysis but also influenced
modern scholarship in a number of disciplines, including discourse studies in general
and Critical discourse analysis in particular. An African dimension of Critical discourse

64
analysis can be located, argued and conceptualized from a blend of African rhetoric
from Critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis recognizes the efficacy of
African knowledge systems with its tools of critical analysis, such as proverbs, idioms,
similes, symbolism, myths and legends so inherent in African language, as useful in
communication (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005:25).

Tenorio (2011:188) also traces the foundation of Critical discourse analysis as

branches of social theory and earlier discourse analysis as follows:

The philosophical and linguistic bases on which critical discourse analysis

grounded are certain branches of social theory and earlier discourse
analysis, text linguistics and interactional socio linguistics.

Tenorio adds that some proponents of Critical discourse analysis are influenced by
Marx’s critique of capitalist exploitation of the working class, historical dialectical
method, definition of ideology as the super structure of civilization, and notion of
language as “product, producer and reproducer of social consciousness”. (Van Dijk,
1993b) agrees that the Marxist theory and the Frankfurt Schools’ critical theory have
been identified as further building blocks to critical discourse analysis

The Marxist theory explains that there is dialectal relationship between superstructures
e.g. literature, newspapers, discourse, politics, religion and the economic base
(Eagleton, 1976; Seldon & Widdowson, 1997). The Marxist’s verdict is that ideas in
any social formation reflect class interest, especially those of dominant social classes.
Drawing from a Marxist theoretical perspective, ideas do not orbit freely and they are
reflective of historical conditions. These ideas are intercepted by those particular
historical conditions that have to be investigated and changed to liberate the
oppressed.

Critical discourse analysis scholars such as Reisigl and Wodak (2010:36), also share
this view by advocating the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) that was developed
by Ruth Wodak and other scholars in Vienna. It was designed for inter-disciplinary
study of post war antisemitism in Australia. The approach itself is associated with large

65
programmes of research in inter-disciplinary research groups focusing on racism,
sexism, and antisemitism.

The distinctive feature of this approach is its attempt to integrate

systematically all available background information in the analysis and
interpretation of the many layers of written and spoken text, specifically
taking into account the four layers of context (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001:36)

From the above quotation, one can comprehend that the Discourse Historical
Approach can assist in interpreting text and talk. Wodak (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001) adds
that the Discourse Historical Approach is designed to enable the analysis of implicit
prejudiced utterances, as well as to identify and expose the codes and allusion
contained in the prejudiced discourse.

The use of the term “critical discourse analysis” (CDA) can be traced back to the
influence of the Monist and the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory in which critique is
the mechanism for both explaining social phenomena and for changing them (Chilton,
et al., 2010). The present study also uses Critical discourse analysis as a mechanism
to explain manipulation and suggest ways to curb the act of manipulation through in-
depth investigation and analysis of data. An area of applied linguistics was taken as a
paradigm, a method and analytical techniques originally known as “critical language
study”. Van Dijk refers to this as critical discourse studies to accommodate it as a
combination of theory application and analysis (Van Dijk, 1977).

Van Dijk (1985) reveals that the first handbook that focused on discourse analysis
appeared in 1985; a four series volume that included topics on dialogue, conversation,
discourse analysis as a cross discipline, and dimensions of context. Most scholars who
work in discourse analysis are interested in some form of language, usually labelled
as talk and text, while some use discourse analysis. Recent studies agree that Critical
discourse analysis can be traced back to Gramsci (1977), Haberamn (1989), Althusser
(1998) and Foucault (Van Dijk, 1985).

Fairclough and Wodak (1997) see Van Dijk (1988;1991) and Fairclough (1995) as
contemporary pioneers of Critical discourse analysis who have influenced a global

66
community of Critical discourse analysis including scholars such as Flower (1991);
Barkho (2007); Karlithi and Karlithi (2000); Mazid (2007); Faria (2008), Davis and
French (2008); and Tsakona (2009). Carcao (2008) concurs by pronouncing that all
these critical discourse analysis scholars are driven by a common motive of analysing
discourse as a social practice. They all agree that discursive events are tied to social
process and practices. As a result, Critical discourse analysis scholars dig beyond the
predictability of linguistic expressions and unravel hidden agendas and meanings of
written and spoken discourse. Carcao (2008)’s ideas link very well with the aims of the
study since its main objective is to uncover hidden agendas of written and spoken
discourse as reflected in Siswati folktales.

3.2.3 Aims of Critical discourse analysis

This section will present the aims of Critical discourse analysis as perceived by
scholars such as Fairclough (1995), Locke (2004), McGregor (2010), Lucke (1996),
Van Dijk (1993b) and Wodak and Mayer (2009).

According to Fairclough (1995), Critical discourse analysis aims to make the opaque
aspects of discourse as social practice more visible.

By critical discourse analysis, I mean analysis which aims to

systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and
determine between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b)
wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes, to
investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are
ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and
to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and
society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony (Fairclough,
1995a, 132-33).

Locke (2004:1) also mentions that Critical discourse analysis aims to reveal the
aspects of discourse and that such practices are ideologically shaped by relations of
power and struggles over power. According to Locke (2004:87), Critical discourse
analysis aims at revealing the motivation and politics involved in the arguing for or
against a specific research method, statement or value. Given that the study deals with

67
manipulation, power relations are one of the weapons used by manipulators to take
advantage of their ignorant victims. Locke (1996:13) declares that because texts are
monuments of inter-subjectivity that highlight the social and discursive relations
between human subjects, it involves writers and readers, speakers, listeners,
individuals whose intention is to help people who are oppressed. Above all, they
understand the message they are sending to themselves and others, and understand
the meaning of spoken and written texts by others. The words of those in power are
taken as self-evaded truths and the words of those not in power are dismissed as
irrelevant, inappropriate or without substances (McGregor 2010:2). McGregor (2003)
further deliberates that given to power of the written and spoken word, Critical
discourse analysis is necessary for describing, interpreting, analysing, and criticizing
social life reflected in text. The present study therefore used critical discourse analysis
to describe, analyse and interpret Siswati folktales in order to understand issues of
manipulation.

Lucke (1996:20) argues that Critical discourse analysis can make transparent
asymmetries in relation, revealing the textual techniques by which text attempts to
position, locate, define, enable and regulate readers and addressees. Luke (1996)
further proclaims that the task or function of Critical discourse analysis can be seen as
aiming to investigate issues of related text critically. It enables the analyst to
understand the problems that are mediated by mainstream ideology and power
relations, all perpetuated by the use of written text in our daily and professional lives.

Van Dijk (2011: 03) upholds that Critical discourse analysis aims to offer a different
mode or perspective of theorizing, analysis and applications throughout the whole field.

The study of language use is no longer limited to an analysis of abstract

structures of words, clauses, sentences of propositions, but is part of an
integrated account of a socially and culturally situated and cognitively
based multimodal discourse as interaction and human communication
(Van Dijk, 2011: 03)

He adds that there may be a critical perspective in such a diverse area as pragmatics,
conversation analysis, narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, and

68
ethno therapy or media analysis. He further reveals that the main aim of Critical
discourse analysis is to make more visible these opaque aspects of discourse as social
practice. According to van Dijk (1993b), a single term has many contrasting
interpretations and meanings in different cultural contexts. Van Dijk further explains
that the term “critical” can be used differently in everyday language, frequently
denoting the negative, whereas in Critical discourse analysis, it means the use of
rational thinking to question arguments or prevailing ideas. This implies “not to take
anything for granted” and challenging surface meanings. It is this understanding that
assisted the researcher not to take things for granted but to strive for the deeper
meanings when analysing Siswati folktales.

Wodak and Mayer (2009:7) argue that Critical discourse analysis emphasizes the need
for interdisciplinary work to gain a proper understanding of how language functions in
constituting and transmitting knowledge in organizing social institutions. Rogers, et al.
(2005:368) state that critical theories are genially concerned with issues of power and
justice and the ways that the economy, race, class, gender, religion, education and
sexual orientation construct, reproduce, or transform social systems.

Human subjects use text to make sense of their world and to construct
social actions and relations in the labour of everyday life while at the same
time, exits positions and construct individual making available various
meanings, ideas and version of the world analysis including analysis of
text interactions and social practice at the local institutional and societal
level (Lucke, 1996:12).

This information is useful when analysing Siswati folktales as text and relating them to
practices at different institutional levels.

3.2.4 Proponents of Critical discourse analysis and their views

Various scholars subscribe to different definitions of Critical discourse analysis and are
debated in academic circles. The present researcher discusses the views of Fairclough
(1987), Van Dijk (1993b) and Wodak (2009) as the proponents of critical discourse
analysis. These scholars share common views on equality, control, literacy, and avert.

69
However, the researcher also consulted other scholars to broaden the scope in
interpreting data on manipulation in Siswati folktales.

3.2.4.1 Fairclough’s views on Critical discourse analysis

Fairclough (1989), as one of the proponents of critical discourse analysis, proclaims

that critical discourse analysis brings the critical tradition of social analysis to language
studies. Fairclough deliberates on the critical social changes of particular focus on
discourse and on relations between discourse and other social elements such as
power relations, ideologies, institutions, social identities etc. He views critical discourse
analysis as an example of research aiming at social intervention (Fairclough & Wodak,
1997). These social elements assisted the present study in the search of in-depth
manipulation strategies. Fairclough & Wodak, (1997) further add that critical reading
goes beyond hermeneutics thus the interpretation of Siswati folktales will go beyond
hermeneutics and search for the hidden meaning of discourse in the text and talk.

Fairclough and Wodak (1997) emphasize that Critical discourse analysis aims at
demystifying text-shaped ideology by relations of power. They assert that the focus of
critical discourse analysis is on the opaque relationship between discourse and
societal structure through open interpretation and explanation by relying on systematic
scientific procedures, achieving distance from the data, and setting them in context.
Self-reflection concerning the research process is necessary (Fairclough & Wodak,
1997).

Fairclough, in Gee and Handford (2012), highlights that critical discourse analysis can
be understood as normative and explanatory critique. It is a normative critique in that
it does not simply describe existing realities but also evaluates them and assess the
extent to which they match up to various values, which are taken to be fundamental
for just or decent societies. This may include not only certain standard material, but
also the political and cultural wellbeing of humans. According to Fairclough (2012),
Critical discourse analysis is an explanatory critique that does not simply describe
existing realities but also seeks to explain them, accordingly Siswati folktales will be
analysed in order to search for deeper meaning that explain them. Critical discourse

70
analysis, as a critique, is normative and explanatory; it is concerned with both values
and causes while some critiques are only normative or moral. Therefore, Critical
discourse analyses as a normative critique, contributed to the ongoing study, since the
researcher analyses data collected on manipulation in Siswati folktales taking into
consideration the norms and standards of the emaSwati.

According to Fairclough (1989), what distinguishes social realities from forms of social
analysis that are not critical, is its emphasis upon existing social realities as humanly
produced constrains that prevents progress and increase human suffering. Fairclough
takes the Marxist view that changing the world for better depends upon being able to
explain how it has come to be the way it is. Fairclough views social reality as
conceptually mediated, i.e. the objects of critical social analysis are simultaneously
material and semiotician character. He maintains that there should be a dialectal
relationship between the material and the semiotic, and that the focus should be both
normative and explanatory. Fairclough (1989, 1995) developed a three-tier model of
critical discourse analysis. The model highlights verbal and nonverbal language as
objects of analysis. This made it possible for the researcher to investigate verbal and
nonverbal meanings and gestures.

Fairclough and Wodak (1987) refer to language use in speech and writing as “meaning
making in the social process and a form of social action that is socially shaped”.
Fairclough also uses examples for visual communication and provides different
meanings for the term “discourse”. Fairclough (2009) declares that many scholars
regard text as the only evidence for the existence of discourse and as one kind of
concrete realization of abstract forms of knowledge. At the same time, text is
interactive and influenced by sociolinguistic factors. Fairclough prefers to use the term
“semiotic”, since semiosis plays a part in representing the world acting, interacting and
constructing identity. Fairclough (2009) maintains that the word “semiotic” can be
identified with different perspectives of various groups of social actions. The term
“semiosis” in critical discourse analysis connects well to this study, since the analysis
and the interpretation of Siswati folktales looks at different linguistic forms. Fairclough

71
and Wodak (1987) add that discourse analysis is partly realized in ways of using
language but partly in other ways, e.g. visual semiosis.

Fairclough (2009:164) declares that the scope of Critical discourse analysis is not only
language based but also its critical perspective attracts scholars from various
disciplines as well as activists. Their main concern lies with the unveiling pattern
mechanism of the reproduction of power. Critical discourse analysis attracted scholars
from anthropology, linguistics, philosophy and communication studies (Fairclough,
2009:187).

From its inception critical discourse analysis was a discipline designed to

question the status quo by detecting, analysing and also resisting and
counteracting enactment of power abuse as transmitted in private and
public discourses. Even though for some people, critical might imply to be
judgmental, however in critical discourse analysis it is not (Fairclough.
2009:187).

Fairclough (2009) aligns himself with the different ways in which critical discourse
analysis can be understood, and that critical discourse analysis is understood to be
critical in different ways, i.e. its:

 explicit and unapologetic attitude as far as values and criteria are concerned
(Van Leeuwen (2006).
 commitment to the analysis of social wrong, such as prejudice or unequal
access to power privileges, and material and symbolic resources. (Fairclough,
2009).
 interest in discerning which prevailing hegemonic social practice caused social
wrongs and in developing methods that can be applied to their study (Bloor &
Bloor, 2007).

Fairclough’s contribution enables the present research to analyse folktales utilizing the
insight gained from the description of discourse analysis, critical reading, and critical
interpretation of text and talk.

72
Critical discourse analysis, as a research approach, has its own principles or
philosophical foundations that support the basis of its existence. The researcher will
therefore discuss some key principles as displayed by Fairclough.

Fairclough (2009) stresses that power and dominance are usually institutionalized and
the social dominance of groups is not simply an aggregation of individual acts but may
also be supported by members of the social group, legitimated by law, and
ideologically entrenched and reproduced by the media or textbooks (Fairclough,
2005).

According to Fairclough (2009), lack of power can be measured by the lack of active
or controlled access to discourse, which places groups and individuals in a position of
the passive recipient with no control of the content, relevance or nature of the
discourse to which they have access. Therefore, critical discourse analysis reveals
what is going on behind our backs and the backs of others.

3.2.4.2 Van Dijk’s views on Critical discourse analysis

The previous paragraphs dealt more on critical discourse analysis from Fairclough’s
perspective, while this discussion will be based on Van Dijk (1993b) who views Critical
discourse analysis as an area of applied linguistics that has been taken as a paradigm,
a method and analytical techniques. He reveals that this approach was originally
known as critical language study (CLS) and he refer to this as critical discourse studies
to accommodate it as a combination of theory application and analysis (Van Dijk
1977:29). According to van Dijk (1998), Critical discourse analysis (CDA is a field that
is concerned with studying and analysing written and spoken texts to reveal the
discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality and bias. It examines how these
discursive sources are maintained and reproduced within specific social, political and
historical contexts.

Van Dijk (1993b) highlights that this cross discipline is mainly interested in attending
to all types of semiotic artefact, linguistic and non-linguistic. He further declares that a
central aim of all these various approaches is that critical analysis raises awareness

73
concerning the strategies used in establishing, maintaining and reproducing
asymmetrical relations of power as enacted by means of discourse. Van Dijk (1993b)
came to realize that there are basic concepts and social order that relates critically to
discourse. He identified macro versus micro as basic elements that influence
discourse. In trying to differentiate between the two, Van Dijk (1993b) describes micro
as language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication, and micro as
power, dominance, and inequality between social groups. The present study will use
this perception since power, dominance and inequality serve as the main tools in the
practice of manipulation in Siswati folktales. In addition, Van Dijk (2011:354)
pronounces that critical discourse analysis bridges the gap between macro and micro
approaches, which of course is a distinction that sociologically constructs its own right.
In everyday interaction and experience, the micro and macro level form one unified
whole, e.g. hate speech in parliament as a macro part of legislation.

Like Fairclough, Van Dijk also includes the following principles of critical discourse
analysis:

 Dominance and inequality that is guided by social issues instead of a

disciplinary framework (Van Dijk, 1993a). This implies that methods, theories
and empirical work are chosen as a function of the relevance to the socio-
political goal of the research (Van Dijk,1987).
 Critical discourse analysis that takes an explicit socio-political stance and
elaborates on perspectives, aims and principles (Van Dijk, 1990).
 Understanding power and dominance (Haig, 2001). Social power is defined as
a privileged access to socially valued resources such as wealth, income,
position, status, force, group membership, education, and knowledge
(Fairclough, 2009; Priilletensky, 2012; Van Dijk, 1987). This kind of power
involves control of one group by another and may pertain to action and cognition
(Van Dijk 1987). Practice of power takes the form of limiting the freedom of
others and influencing their minds through persuasion, dissimulation or
manipulation in favour of the dominant group’s interest (Van Dijk, 1993a). The
ongoing study unveiled the extent in which power dominance is used to limit the

74
 freedom of folktale characters who are victims of manipulation in order to
manipulate them. Linked to power, is the concept of dominance, which may be
enacted and reproduced by everyday routine forms of text and talks that
legitimate the forms of control and naturalize the unequal social order.
 Critical discourse analysis focus on access. One of the resources that enforce
power and dominance is privileged access to discourse and communication
(Van Dijk 1991). Depending on the degree of access they have, participants
may have more or less control over variable properties of the discourse, such
as the setting, presence of the participants, modes of participants, agenda, and
style

Van Dijk (2011) discusses the effects of verbal and nonverbal language as objects of
analysis. He investigated these resources to answer how they represent real life
situations, particularly when used to manipulate. In his investigation, he explores the
process of text production and/ or consumption, be it writing, speaking designing and
reading. He further investigates the socio-historical process under which historical
process from which texts are perceived, negotiated, produced and reproduced. (Van
Dijk, 2011:357).

Van Dijk (2006) identifies power as control in critical discourse analysis and articulates
that people or a group have power if they are able to control the acts and minds of
other groups. This ability presupposes a power based on privileged access to scarce
special resources such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge, information, culture,
and various forms of public discourse and communication. Van Dijk (2006)
distinguishes between different types of power and maintains that different types of
power may be distinguished according to the various resources employed to exercise
such powers, e.g. money, the rich will have power because of their money. The more
or less persuasive power of parents, professors or journalists may be based on
knowledge, information, or authority, while the cohesive power of military and violent
men will rather be based on force.

75
According to Van Dijk (2006), power is unconditional, as groups may less control other
groups or only controls them in specific situation or social domains. Moreover,
dominated groups may resist, accept, condone or comply with such power or legitimate
it and even find it natural. Furthermore, the power of dominant groups may be
integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits and even quite consensus, and thus take the
form of hegemony, such as class domination, sexism and racism. Van Dijk () further
asserts that power is not always exercised in obviously abusive acts of dominant group
members but may be endorsed in the uncountable tacit actions of everyday life, as is
typically the case in the meant forms of everyday sexism of racism.

The above deliberations a great help for the analysis of data in Siswati folktales, since
manipulative acts are practised every day because of power relations, and are taken
for granted by the victims. Moreover, manipulation may not always be exercised in
obvious abusive acts, but may be hidden. Therefore, Van Dijk’s views best informed
the study in this regard.

In the analysis of the relationship between discourse and power, Van Dijk (2006) finds
that access to specific forms of discourse especially those of politics, the media or
science is itself a resource of power. He further highlights that as minds control actions,
it is possible to influence people’s minds, affecting their knowledge or opinions and
indirectly control some of their actions. In other words, the groups who control the most
influential discourse have more chance to control the minds and actions of others. In
the same way, manipulators in folktales may influence the minds of their victims to
manipulate them and in some way control their minds and their actions without them
realizing it.

Van Dijk (2006) also identifies the discursive power of Critical discourse analysis
research. His aim is to address how powerful groups control discourse, how such
discourse controls the minds and actions of less powerful groups, and the social
consequence of such control, such as social inequality.

Van Dijk (2006: 355) writes:

76
 Note also that power is seldom absolute. Groups may more or less control
other groups, or only control them in specific situations or social domains.
Moreover, dominated groups may more or less resist, accept, condone,
comply with or legitimate such power and even find it natural.

Van Dijk discovers that in many situations, ordinary people are more or less passive
targets of the text or talk of their bosses, teachers, authorities such as police officers,
judges, welfare bureaucrats, or text inspectors who may simply tell them what to do or
what not to do, what to believe and what not to believe.

Members of more powerful groups and institutions have more or less exclusive access
to and control over one or more public discourse. Citing examples in support of power
relations, Van Dijk (2006:355) mentions that professors control scholarly discourse,
teachers may control educational discourse, journalists control media discourse,
lawyers control legal discourse, and politicians control policy and other public political
discourse. People who have control over the most influential discourse are also more
powerful. Van Dijk (Ibid: 355) emphasizes that it is one of the tasks of critical discourse
analysis to spell out these forms of power. In addition, he reveals that access and
control may be defined both for the structure of texts and of contextual talk. In this
case, context is defined as the mentally represented structure of those properties of
the social situation that are relevant for the production or comprehension of discourse.
Moreover, it consists of fine categories such as the overall definition of the situation
setting, ongoing actions, and participants in various communicative social and/ or
institutional roles as well as their mental representations, e.g. goals, knowledge
opinions, attitudes and ideologies. In other words, it is very important to determine the
definition of the communication situation, time and place in the communication event,
which participants may be present, which role or what knowledge or opinions they
have, and which social actions may be accomplished by discourse (Van Dijk, 2006).
Van Dijk’s views assisted the study in the analysis of time, setting and communication
strategies that open folktale characters to being manipulated.

Van Dijk (2006) emphasizes that it is crucial in the enactment or exercise of group
power not to look at the content but over the structure of the texts and talk. In relating

77
text and context, members of powerful groups may decide on the possible discourse
genre, speech, act of and occasion. Van Dijk (2006:357) also examines how powerful
speakers may abuse their powers in different situations, e.g. when a police officer uses
force to get a confession from a suspect. Van Dijk (2006: 357) adds that genres
typically have conventional schemas consisting of various categories and access to
some of these may be prohibited or obligatory, e.g. some way of greeting in a
conversation may only be used by speaker of specific social group, rank, age or
gender. Another important factor in all discourse and communication is who controls
the topic and topic change, e.g. men may change the topic in conversation with
women. Bhabha (1970:08) confirms that people must not lose sight of the way people
have different and complex relations to different power structures in any society, e.g.
a woman may find herself in lesser position of power due to social class and ethnicity.

According to Van Dijk (2006:35) even though discourse control is contextual or global,
local details of meaning, form and style may be controlled, e.g. choice of lexical items
or jargon in court rooms. Volume may be controlled and speakers ordered to keep their
voices down. All levels and structures of content, text and talk can be more or less
controlled by powerful speakers and such power may be abused at the expense of
other participants. Van Dijk (2006: 357) deliberates about mind control and says:

If controlling of discourse is a first major form of power, controlling

people’s minds is the other fundamental way to reproduce dominance
and hegemony. Within a Critical discourse framework, “mind control”
involves even more than just acquiring beliefs about the world through
discourse and communication.

In his deliberations on mind control, Van Dijk (2006: 357) highlights that mind control
involves even more than just acquiring belief about the world through discourse and
communication. He highlights ways that power and dominance are involved in mind
control as follows.

 Recipients tend to accept beliefs, knowledge and opinions through discourse

from what they see as autoreactive, trustworthy or credible source such as
scholars, experts, professionals or reliable media.

78
  In some situations, participants are obliged to be recipients of discourse, e.g.
education and in many job situations lessons, learning materials, job
instructions and other discourse types that may need to be attended to,
interpreted and learned as intended by institutional or organizational authors.
 In many situations, no public discourse or media may provide information from
which alternative beliefs may be derived.
 Recipients may not have the knowledge and belief needed to challenge the
discourse or information to which they are exposed.

The discussions on mind control will enable the study to analyse data successfully and
be able to answer research questions on how manipulators easily control the minds of
their victims and the reasons why victims of manipulation find themselves as victims
of manipulation repeatedly without noticing the act.

Van Dijk (2006) considers socio-cognitive studies as a leading figure in social cognitive
approaches to critical discourse analysis. This approach highlights the cognitive
dimensions of how discourse operates in racism ideology and knowledge. focuses on
agenda for interdisciplinary and critical research on discourse, and cognition. His work
further includes the role of media and of elite public figures in the reproduction of
racism, which has illustrated congruence between the public representatives and
community, held ethnic prejudices such as immigration as invasion, immigrants and
refugees as spongers, and criminal as predators of violence. Van Dijk further includes
the systematic study of the relation between knowledge context and discourse,
developing a typology of knowledge and a contextually rounded definition of
knowledge as shared consensus of beliefs among social groups. (Wodak & Mayor,
2009).

Van Dijk (2006) emphasizes that these conditions of mind control are largely
contextual, other conditions are discursive or a function of the structure and strategies
of text or talk itself. In a specific context, certain meaning and forms of discourse have
more influence on people’s minds than others do. If one has elementary insight into
some of the structures of the mind, and what it means to control it, the crucial question

79
is how discourse and its structures are able to exercise such control. Van Dijk (2006)
observes that context has an influence in discourse because discursive influence may
be due to context as well as to the structures of text and talks. Contextually based
control is derived from the fact that people understand and represent not only the text
and talk but also the whole communicative situation. Thus, according to van Dijk
(2006), critical discourse analysis typically studies how context features, such as the
properties of language use of powerful groups, influence the way members of
dominated group define the communicative situation in a preferred context model. Van
Dijk (2006) puts more emphasis on how discourse structures influence mental
representations. Thus, a typical feature of manipulation is implicitly to communicative
beliefs, i.e. without actually asserting them and with less chance that they will be
challenged.

Van Dijk (:358) indicates that various types of discourse structures may influence the
information and change mental models and social representation. He provides a
general picture on how discourse is involved in dominance or power abuse and in the
production of social inequality. He further mentions that there are discourse studies
dealing with power dominance and social inequality that have not been explicitly
conducted, however he tried to deliberate on them, as they are part of Critical
discourse analysis According to Van Dijk (2006:359), discourse studies need more
attention and need to be explicitly studied and researched. He mentions aspects such
as gender, inequality, political discourse, ethnocentrism, antisemitism, nationalism,
and racism as aspects that needs special attention by researchers. This insight will
enable the study to expose aspects that promote manipulation in Siswati folktales.

Aspects such as gender inequality and political discourse play a very important role in
exercising power dominance in folktales. Van Dijk (2006) also highlights that critical
discourse analysis from group domination to professional and institutional power and
dominance are associated with specific social groups and their professional elite and
institutions. He further mentions that the rules and routines form the background of
everyday discursive reproduction of power in such domains and institutions. In Van
Dijk’s view, the victims of such power are the public or citizens at large, e.g. audience,

80
students, and other groups that are dependent on institutional and organizational
power. Van Dijk (2006) identified between discourse structures in the cognitive
interface and those of local and global societal context. He concludes by saying that
Critical discourse analysis deals with the relationship between discourse and power
even though there are still some gaps; he further encourages the integration of
approaches in order to arrive at a satisfactory form of multidisciplinary Critical
discourse analysis.

Van Dijk (2006) regards context as mostly cognitive, since “it has to do with our
knowledge of social situations and institutions and how we use language on them”. He
claims that each context controls a specific type of discourse and each discourse
depends on a specific type of context; its power to exert cohesion depends on
discourse coherence. Discourse on the other hand as text in context, is defined by its
effect in use, in speech, and in words, therefore discourse is the pragmatic process of
meaning negotiation and text Van (Dijk, 2006) This helps the study to discover and
analyse the effects of powers invested over powerful groups in manipulative discourse
in Siswati folktales.

3.2.4.3 Critical discourse analysis according to Ruth Wodak

Ruth Wodak is one of the pioneers of Critical discourse analysis and defines critical
discourse analysis it as a problem-oriented interdisciplinary research programme
incorporating a variety of approaches each with a different theoretical model, research
method and agenda. Wodak indicates that these approaches have differences and
similarities. According to Wodak, Critical discourse analysis is the term used to denote
the theory formerly identified as CL (critical linguistics). Wodak views critical discourse
analysis as a manifolds approach:

The diverse roots of critical discourse analysis lie in rhetoric, text

linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, socio psychology, cognitive science
literary studies and socio linguistics and pragmatics (Wodak, 2009:38)

Corresponding to van Dijk (2006), Wodak (2009) declares that discourse is socially
constitutive as well as socially shaped. In that way discourse constitutes situations,

81
objects of knowledge, and social identities and relationships between people and
groups of people. She further clarifies that critical discourse analysis is socially
constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and reproduce the social status
quo and in the sense that it contributes to transforming it. Thus, discursive practical’s
may have major ideological effects, i.e. they can help produce and reproduce unequal
power relations between social classes, women and men, and ethnic groups by the
way in which they represent things and position people. Wodak’ s deliberations
assisted the study in finding the research answers regarding manipulation, especially
manipulation based on inequality, gender and ethnic groups. Wodak maintains that
the main aim of critical discourse analysis is to make the opaque aspects of discourse
more visible as social practice. Moreover, Wodak encourages rational thinking to
question arguments or prevailing ideas, i.e. not to take anything for granted and
challenge surface meaning (Chilton, et al. 2010). This have benefited the researcher
to avoid taking things for granted and to be alert to analyse manipulation data in Siswati
folktales by challenging the surface as well as hidden meaning of folktales

Wodak (2009) perceives critical discourse analysis as a problem-orientated critical

approach to research and that if Critical discourse analysis does not have a fixed
theoretical and methodological position. A different set of analytical and theoretical
tools are required to investigate neoliberal ideology from those needed to explore
discriminatory practices in the workplace in a particular organization (Wodak & Mayor
2009).

Wodak (2009:17) summarizes the most important current approaches to critical

discourse analysis and lists the following major areas and related challenges that were
helpful in the current study on manipulation.

 The critical linguistics and social semiotic approaches describe critical

discourse analysis as an established field of linguistic research by critical
linguistics that was developed in Britain during the 1970s. She adds that this
field was closely related to the function systematic linguistic theory, which
accounts for its emphasis on practical ways of analysing text and the attention.

82
 It stretches to the role of grammar in its ideological potential of certain
grammatical forms, such as passive structure, transitively and normalization.
This approach also considers linguistic forms like metaphors, argumentative,
fallacies, rhetorical devices, and presupposition that have been curiously
proven to be fruitful points of entry for critical the semiotic analysis of social
problems. The approach suggests that any critical interpretation must relate to
the social, political and historical context (Wodak & Mayor, 2009). In search of
the method used by manipulators to deceive their victims, the researcher
considered linguistic forms, since they are likely to be used by most
manipulators.
 The social semiotic highlights the multi semiotic and potentially ideological
character of most text in contemporary society and explores ways of analysing
the intersection of language, images, design, colours, spatial arrangements and
so forth (Wodak & Mayor 2009). Wodak (2009) also regards the relational
dialect approach as an approach that has been developed following
Fairclough’s work on the dialect theory of discourse and transdisciplinary
approach to social change.
 The discourse historical approach is associated with large research projects in
interdisciplinary research, team focusing on sexism, antisemitism, identity,
politics, organizational discourse and racism Wodak (2009). Wodak argues that
one of the major aims of this kind of critical research has been its practical
application. The distinctive feature of this approach is its attempt to integrate all
available background information in the analysis and interpretation of the many
layers of a written or spoken text systematically. It specifically takes into account
four layers of context, leading from the broad socio-political context to the
textual co-text of utterance. This approach attempts to trace details on a
phenomenon based on public discourse, especially racist discourse. The
approach is designed to enable the analysis of implicit, coded prejudiced
utterances, as well as to identify and expose the allusions contained in
prejudiced discourse (Wodak 2009). Siswati folktales, as written and spoken

83
 text, will be analysed and interpreted taking into account the available
background information to trace more details on the practice of manipulation.
 The argumentation and rhetoric approach is as an important approach in critical
discourse analysis, as it aims to uncover the subtle and tacitly racist ideologies
underpinning immigration policy. It is more generally applied in newspapers,
letters to the editor, management discourse, populist and discriminating
discourse, and political discourse. It is devoted to the language of persuasion
and justification, and is therefore used in public discourse.
 The corpus-based approach can be applied to a range of socio-linguistic issues
as it develops novel ways of using corpus tools, such as keyword analysis, in
critical discourse analysis. Some scholars like Baker et al. (2008) utilize the
corpus method to analyse the discourse of racism in newspapers critically.
Although this approach is mostly used in newspapers, the study will benefit from
it since persuasive language is analysed as one of the tools used in
manipulation practice. Wodak ‘s views, approaches, and tools for analysis
contribute to the analysis of Siswati folktales in search of manipulation as social
and contextual practice.

3.2.4.4 Views from other scholars and researchers on

Critical discourse analysis

As much as there are proponents of this approach, there are also scholars who
contributed in the field and their views will be discussed in support of the already
discussed views. Views of scholars such as Gee (1999), Alvesson (2004), and
Tenario, (2011) are discussed below.

Gee (1999), who drove from a more critical and post structural perspective of critical
discourse analysis, articulates that this approach frames discourse as indicative of
broader social patterns and practices, especially discourse used in advertising
strategies, nutrition, curriculum and social institutions. He distinguishes between
macro, messo and micro levels of discourse. According to Gee (1999), macro
discourse is often positioned as enduring patterns of talk and text. He describes the
messo level as a level that treats discourse as “instance of talk and text that stick

84
together the connection between micro discourse and macro discourse”. In so doing,
the messo level helps to illustrate how macro discourse bears down entirely on the
micro level discourse. In short, messo levels also means opportunities to focus more
directly on the concepts of discourse as discursive practice or the routine that uses
text and talk to coordinate actions across context. Gee (1999) further explains that at
the messo level, discourse is engaged in social research, since it is interpretative and
critical in perspective. Embedded at the heart of discourse analysis, is the argument
that language illustrates, construct and define reality. It is a methodologic approach to
make claims about interpretative and/ or critical theories (Alvesson & Karen, 2004).

Alvesson (2004) discusses micro level discourse as a level focused on how individuals
and groups use language in social settings. According Alvesson (2004), talk is the
most often framed as naturally occurring conversations and dialogue or talk that is not
influenced by a researcher. Moreover, texts are often a formal and informal document
that serves as written accounts of interaction. The reasons that this definition of
discourse favours local interactions and sometimes even short passage from a single
conversation of discourse and approaches to discourse analysis are wide and varied.
From Alvesson (2004) historical point of view, discourse analysis is based on related
theoretical methodological traditions with their emphasis on textual analysis, the
interpretive turn in the social sciences, and the advancement of critical theory.
Alvesson (2004) in Mills & Birks (2014) raises concern that the term “discourse” was
becoming a catch to describe any study that deals with terms like language dialogue
and text.

Tenario (2011) wrote about the heterogeneity of critical discourse analysis including
its power to attract and annoy as well as its most exiting traits and weaknesses.
Tenario (2011:183) pays more attention to problem-orientated social research founded
in social history, semiotics, and linguistics, to scholarly approaches that are considered
critical and the objections raised against critical discourse analysis as well as the new
trends trying to tackle its limitation. The problem-oriented research informs the present
study in identifying terms used in discourse, as they may display some ideologies,
power and dominance hidden in folktale discourse. Tenario (2011) also addresses the

85
question of what should be understood by “critical” with the aim of resolving
misconceptions associated with it. Tenario (2011) clarifies commonly used terms such
as text, discourse and context as well as other terms that play a central role in critical
discourse analysis such as ideology, power, dominance, prejudice, and
representation. Since linguistic is not the only influence on the development of Critical
discourse analysis, she gives attention to other influences from sociology, social theory
and philosophy (Tenario 2011:183).

3.2.5 Criticism of Critical discourse analysis

A number of critical views were brought forward against this analytical approach.
Critical discourse analysis has come under criticism from various scholars such as
Widdowson (1995), Berger and Lucknman (1966), Hamersley (1966), Garzoner and
Santali (2004), Bateman, Delin and Henschel (2004), Jones (2007), Stubbs (1977),
Richardson (2007) and Vershuren (1985). Some of the criticism concerns the
epistemological question of how “critical” is to be defined. They question whether it
means attacking ideas, attitudes and values we do not agree with and question how
texts are chosen for analysis. However, most of their criticisms concern issues of
methodology (Van Dijk, 2006:208).

Haig (2001:134) articulates that the focus of critiques of Critical discourse analysis is
whether the approach produces valid knowledge. Haig (2001) criticizes Critical
discourse analysis for being under its philosophical foundations, lacking an adequately
developed sociological theory, and for what it considers an impractical ambition to
effect social change which potentially undermines the scholarly integrity of the
approach (Haig, 2001:134). In addition to his criticism, is the focus on the term “critical”
which, for some, is a marked contrast to the positivist’s rejection of normative judgment
in favour of a focus on factual inquiry (Haig, 2001). Another burning issue is the
adoption of the label “critical”, which is the subject of criticism from discourse analysts
due to the implication that discourse analysis was not critical and by implication, not
capable of understanding power dynamics as they affect the powerless (Hiag, 2001;
Janks, 1977).

86
Haig (2001) responds by stating that the position of Critical discourse analysis as a
critical approach is that Critical discourse analysis aims to effect social change through
critical understanding of discursive processes that shape society as a whole. Overtime,
this ambition has become more realistic, local, and pragmatic but remains a central
principle of critical discourse analysis. The overly normative stance of critical discourse
analysis also leads to a dilemma highlighted by Fairclough (1992) of rejecting some
types of normative while appearing to accept others. The issue here is not only the
analytical bias that explicit socio-political stance brings, but also the assumption that
the chosen theoretical perspective is the correct one (Maingueneau & O’Regan, 2006).

According to Mayr and Machin (2012:208), criticism of Critical discourse analysis has
its focus on certain interrelated issues such as, CDA:

 is not the only critical approach

 is an exercise in interpretation not analysis
 for the most part ignores real readers and listeners
 does not pay enough attention to production text
 is not cognitive enough
 is too selective, partial and qualitative
 is too ambitious in the quest for social chance. (Mayr, 2012:208).

Some criticisms were based on Toolan (1977:3), who claims to be much more in favour
of critical discourse analysis than against it. He was criticized for taking issue with the
apparent claim of Critical discourse analysis that addresses the workings of power in
discourse (Toolan 1977:87). Critics pertaining to the study of ideology and language
were not started by critical discourse analysis and the relationship between ideology
and language has been challenged since Plato and Aristotle. (Toolan 1977:87) further
highlights that Critical discourse analysis has been the subject of constructivist theories
of language and ideology that regard every instance of language use as ideological.

Within sociology, there is a broad tradition of work on the social construction of reality,
e.g. Berger and Luckman (1966) and Hamersley (1966) who deal with the
philosopher’s foundation underlying notion that “critical” charges Critical discourse

87
analysis with reducing relations of domination between aggressors and the oppressed.
As regard to critical discourse analysis, there has been a lot of literature that emerged
after the pioneering work of Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996), e.g. the work of Liu and
O’Hollarans (2009), the work on new media, Abousouga and Machines (2009, 2011),
the work on the three-dimensional object, and Jewitts (2006,2007) work on the
classroom learning environment.

Widdowson (1995, 1998) has taken issues with the central tenets of Critical discourse
analysis, maintaining that Critical discourse analysis is not a method of analysis but an
exercise in interpretation in support of “beliefs takes procedure over analysis in support
of theory”. He also criticizes the interpretation and analysis of text:

The difference between interpretation and analysis is that “Interpretation

is a matter of converging on a particular meaning as having some kind of
privileged validity. The point about analysis is that it seeks to reveal those
factors which lead to a divergence of possible meanings, each
conditionally valid” (Widdowson, 1995:159).

Moreover, he pronounces that critical discourse analysis privileges particular meaning

of texts while largely ignoring alternative reading, including how ordinary people read
and understand text. Widdowson argues that reactions of educated communities
towards the analysis in ideological discourse are rarely taken into account. Widdowson
maintains that the analysis produced by Critical discourse analysis is post hoc; he
argues that Critical discourse analysts looks at the text, decide to analyse it, and then
use Critical discourse analysis tools to demonstrate that the analysis is not merely a
simple interpretation, but rather a systematic and controlled exercise that can be
empirically repeated by others.

Forceville (1999) is highly critical of Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) in this regard,
although it can be argued that he chose some of the weaker elements in their work to
challenge. Forceville further argues that many Critical discourse analysis researchers
choose cases that are easier to analyse and are obvious in terms of what they
communicate, even without in-depth analysis (Widdowson, 1998).

88
Another significant criticism, posed by Richardson (2007) and Verschuren (1985), is
that critical discourse analysis does not pay enough attention to the intentions of text
producers. If the main purpose of the analysis is to uncover and challenge the
repressive discourse practices of powerful, interested groups, then what needs to be
considered are the effect of these practices on ordinary non-academic people. Both
Richardson (2007) and Verschuren (1985) have argued that the analysis of the social
conditions of text production and consumption in critical discourse analysis remains an
undeveloped area and that too much discourse analysis ignores the structural and
functional properties of the newsgathering.

Multimodal critical discourse analysis has also been criticized for not consulting
sufficiently with producers. Bateman, Delin and Henschel (2004), and Machin (2007),
argue that visual or multimodal Critical discourse analysis assumes that the kinds of
meanings and interpretations offered by the analyst are to some extent imposed
through his or her analysis. ’O’Halloran (2003) argues that Critial Discourse Analysis
has focused on the explanation stage of analysis in which it seeks mainly to accent
the connection between text and the wider sociocultural practice at the expense of
interpretation. ’O’Halloran (2003) adds that Critical discourse analysis claims to
interpret text on behalf of readers who might be manipulated unknowingly (Fairclough
& Wodak, 1997); there needs to be an analysis of the relationship between readers
and the text being read, and this involves more cognition. Criticism pounded to Van
Dijk by ’O’Halloran (2003), was that cognition is missing from many studies in critical
discourse analysis; as a result, it fails to show that societal structures are move to van
in turn enacted, legitimized or challenged by discourse. Some scholars, like O’Halloran
(2009), mention that there has been little cognitive focus on how text can be justified
for readers and the description of the event. Chilton (2005b) also points out that Critical
discourse analysis largely, has not paid enough attention to the questions of how the
human mind works when engaging in social and political actions, which is largely
human verbal action. He argues that racism is both a cognitive and social phenomenon
that has social function of protecting in-group.

89
The fourth criticism is that Critical discourse analysis is too selective, partial and
qualitative. The view is that analysts select a text or type of discourse known in
advance to be contentious; the confirmation is presented through an analysis that in
essence, only partially addresses certain patterns of language in the text. In that way:

the linguistic analysis may become a mere supplement to what the

analyst has decided a priori about the text. ... Garzone and Santulle ...
claim that because CDA practitioners are especially preoccupied with
sociological and political issues, they tend to focus their attention on
larger discursive units of text, often at the expense of ‘linguistic analysis
proper’. They therefore suggest the incorporation of corpus-linguistic
tools into a CDA analysis. (Machin & Mayr, 2012:213)

Stubbs (1977) who is sympathetic to Critical discourse analysis, nevertheless

challenges Critical discourse analysis,’s methodological assumptions. He claims that
although Critical discourse analysis presents valid arguments about text organization,
its linguistic basis is inadequate. Stubbs questions whether critical discourse analysis
actually adheres to standards of careful, rigorous and systematic analysis (Fairclough
& Wodak, 1977:259). In other words, Critical discourse analysis generalises about
social representation and social change without the linguistic evidence to support it.
Stubbs alludes to the fact that there is also no comparison between texts. Stubbs
suggests that critical discourse analysis would benefit from using qualitative and
comparative methods.

The final criticism concerns the question of how effective critical discourse analysis is
as a method and what it has accomplished in terms of social change and equality.
Hammersley (1996) claims that Critical discourse analysis appears to be too ambitious
in aiming for social change, which is vaguely defined in critical discourse analysis
literature. Because of this, researchers may over-interpret the data, whereby
ideological evaluations become part of textual analysis.

Jones (2007) goes as far as saying that despite the good intentions and radical social
agenda of its practitioners, Critical discourse analysis, as a discipline, is invalid. He
says:

90
 CDA, then, despite the good intentions and radical social agenda of its
practitioners, is simply further proof of the theoretical bankruptcy of the
ideologically conservative ‘language myth’ on which conventional
linguistics is founded. The success of CDA in academic circles along with
its intellectual respectability and influence within the social sciences more
generally are, ‘like all important myths’, ‘flatters and reflects the type of
culture, which sponsors it’ (Jones, 2007:366).

According to Jones, the problem is not with the aims but with the conception of
discourse and the criticizing of the real-life communicative process. McGregory
(2010:2) argues that Critical discourse analysis challenges us to move from seeing
language as abstract to seeing our words as having meaning in a particular historical,
social and political condition. Critical discourse analysis studies real instances of social
interaction in a particularly linguistic form (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000:448). The
current study did not dwell much on the criticism of critical discourse analysis but took
care not to take sides, and not to be biased when analysing data.

3.2.6 Rationale for Critical discourse analysis in this study

Critical discourse analysis, as an approach, has been carefully selected as a theory

that will be used to guide the analysis of data collected to investigate manipulation in
Siswati folktales. Olson (2007) declares that:

Discourse analysis is meant to provide a higher awareness of hidden

motivations in others and ourselves and therefore enables people to solve
concrete problems, not providing unequivocal answers but by making
people ask ontological answers and epistemological questions.
Therefore, it will not provide absolute answers to a specific problem, but
enables us to understand the conditions behind a specific problem and it
will further make us release that the essence of that problem and its
resolution lie in its assumptions that the very assumptions that enable the
existence of that problem (Olson, 2007:29)

The above knowledge assists the present study in revealing the opaque meaning of
words used to manipulate others in Siswati folktales and to critically analyse and
investigate the hidden motivation of manipulators. Furthermore, Critical discourse

91
analysis enabled the researcher to provide answers to manipulation strategies and
other factors such as institutions, power relations, linguistic factors, and the historical
background of discourse that may encourage vulnerability to manipulation. An analysis
of Siswati folktales, through the guidance of, will raise the awareness of present and
future victims of manipulation. The analysis of Siswati folktales did not look at the
obvious meaning but unveiled the hidden meaning and exposed manipulators to help
present and future victims.

In the critical analysis of data, there are advantages and disadvantages that guide the
researcher in making proper decisions. Morgan (2010:4) discusses some of the
advantages and believes that Critical discourse analysis can reveal often unspoken
and unacknowledged aspects of human behaviour, making salient either hidden or
dominant discourse that maintains marginalized positions in society. Morgan (2010:4)
maintains that critical discourse analysis can reveal or help to construct a variety of
new alternatives to the available positions of social ’subjects, which in itself can be
very empowering to the most vulnerable individuals, like victims of manipulation in
Siswati folktales. According to Morgan, Critical discourse analysis CDA can provide a
positive social-psychological critique of any phenomenon under the gaze of the
researcher. It therefore boosted the study, as the researcher looked for manipulative
practices from both a sociological and psychological perspective. Moreover, critical
discourse analysis assists in the search for hidden and dominant discourse that is
aimed at manipulation. Morgan (2010) insists that Critical discourse analysis has a
relevance and practical application at any given time, in any given place, and for any
given people, as discourse analysis is context specific. This relates very well with the
present study, as folktales are analysed in context.

Critical discourse analysis, as a perspective, helps create conditions to study language

in use through spoken and written words. Different scholars agree that discourse
analysis is used as an umbrella term to describe various research techniques that are
used to study everything from local language practices to larger systems of socially
constructed meaning (Alvesson, 2004:69). Alvesson further indicates that
understanding the functions of language and discourse enables positive individual and

92
 social change, which presents a critical challenge to traditional theory, policy and
practice in many contexts. A reflective stance is incorporated wherein researchers
cannot be neutral observers (Alvesson, 2004:69). The present research adopted the
use of language in context to analyse manipulation in folktales because folktale
characters’ use language to communicate and plan manipulative acts.

The principles and guidelines mentioned by the scholars above informed the study in
the analysis, interpretation and explanation of manipulation as a form of social action
through discourse. Fairclough and Wodak’s (1997) principles were used as a basis
and the principles of Olson (2007), as supportive information.

3.3 Psychoanalytic approach

As mentioned in the introduction, Critical discourse analysis was incorporated with the
psychoanalytic approach in analysing the data collected on manipulation in Siswati
folktales. This section will discuss the Psychoanalytic approach looking at the
definition, historical background, aim, proponents, its strengths, and criticism.

3.3.1 Definition of Psychoanalysis

Scholars such as Ritzer and Ryan (2011), Gay (1989), Farrell (1981), and Gellner
(1985) state that the Psycho analytic approach was propounded by Freud.

Ritzer and Ryan (2011:447) look at the Psychoanalytic approach from a sociological
point of view and define it as a theoretical perspective that focuses on the unconscious
mental process:

Psychoanalytic theory is based on Freud’s image of the individual and his

notion of psychic reality. The individual’s perception and conception of the
self, the other, and the world in which he or she resides are by and large
illusory. The individual is presented as profane, irrational, self-deceptive,
narcissistic, power hungry and the slave of the most primitive desire
(Ritzer and Ryan, 2011:477).

93
From the above quotation, it is evident that Freud (1926), regarded as the father of
Psychoanalysis, proclaims that our thoughts, feelings, and behaviour are determined
by factors that are outside of our conscious awareness.

3.3.2 Historical background of Psychoanalysis

According to Gay (1989: xii), Sigmund Freud (1926) is regarded as a pioneer in the
recognition of the importance of unconscious mental activity. His theories are based
on the inner workings of the human mind. He later coined the term “psychoanalysis”.
Gay (1989: xii) adds that Freud (1926) devoted most of his writings and thoughts on
mental lip, including dream interpretation, structural theory of the mind and the
technique of Psychoanalysis. Although many scholars and analysts first considered
Freud a radical, he was eventually known as a leading expert in Psychoanalysis.

Ritzer and Ryan (2011:236) concur that Sigmund Freud is regarded as the pioneer for
Psychoanalytic approach and his focus is on unconscious motives arising from infant
experiences that offer a distinct approach to understanding human motives. Freud’s
focus is on how the super ego, which internalizes societal demands, offers a way of
understanding how social norms affect individuals. His approach has had an enduring
influence in sociology, shaping important research especially into gender, family and
religion. The current research focuses on the analyses of data collected on
manipulation in Siswati folktales taking into consideration the human and social
motives behind that manipulation.

3.3.3 Aims of Psychoanalysis

According to Ritzer and Ryan (2011:236), Freud’s main aim in Psychoanalysis is

concerned not with the “real” situation but with the individual interpretation of it. This
element empowers the present study in understanding both the real situation and the
individual interpretation in the process of analysis. In psychoanalysis, the individual is
presented as profane, irrational, self-deceptive, narcissistic, power hungry, and the
slave of the most powerful (Ritzer & Ryan, 2011). This information assists the ongoing

94
research to consider both the real situation and the interpretation of manipulation in
folktales.

3.3.4 Proponents of Psychoanalysis and their views

Scholars such as Farrell (1981), Gellner (1985), and Ritzer and Ryan (2011) consider
Freud (1926) the first person to have made initial observations, conceptualise the
mental process, and devise a terminology for in-depth psychology that developed
Psychoanalysis as a science and devoted it to the study of human psychology.
According to Freud (1926), the Psychoanalytic approach can be considered to have
the following three areas of application, namely: the method of investigating the mind,
a systemised body of knowledge about human behaviour, and a modality of therapy
for emotional illness. The present study will dwell on the systemised body of knowledge
about human behaviour, which is known as the Psychoanalytic theory. Freud (1926)
views the Psychoanalytic theory as one that explains mental phenomena, such as
thoughts, feelings and behaviour, as the results of interacting and opposing goal-
directed and motivational forces. Accordingly, to Freud every work of art is a museum,
a piece of the unconscious, an occasion to contemplate the unconscious as if frozen
into one of its possible gestures, words, or expressions. Thus, Freud was interested,
not in the art but in the latent meaning of art. Freud noted that dreams, myths, and
fairy tales supplied useful evidence of primordial and monotonous fantasies of
humankind and of the process of condensation, displacement, and symbolism through
which fantasies are both expressed and disguised (Freud 1970:236). In support of the
psychoanalytic approach, Edelson writes:

The process of interpretation, however, is not straightforward. The

psychoanalyst must wait to discover where the analysand is. For in any
utterance, any phrase, metaphor or word of the analysand, linguistic
ambiguities, both syntactic and semantic, are likely to evoke alterative
symbolic worlds and to raise questions concerning the coexistence of
these symbolic orders and the relations among them. These ambiguities
threaten the psychoanalyst with the possibilities of partial or incorrect
interpretations (Edelson, 1984:23).

95
According to Edelson (1884:23), the Psychoanalytic approach is a particular science
of the imagination, and a science of symbolic functioning where fulfilment and
unconscious fantasy play a central explanatory role. Edelson (1984:102) emphasizes
that Freud was concerned not with the “real” situation but with the individual
interpretation of it, i.e. to deconstruct such interpretation. Since the Psychoanalytic
approach is influenced by Freud as a form of therapy or treatment, treatment evolves
primarily around the analysis of transference. Freud (1969:236) maintains that
transference is what the patient brings to the analytic situation. This includes the
patient’s characteristics, mode of conflict, perceptions, expectations, object relations
or definitions of the situation.

Ritzer and Ryan (2011:222) agree with the interpretive tradition, but argue that
Psychoanalysis goes beyond the hermeneutic method in that the impact of
interpretation can be subjected to an empirical study. The present researcher believes
that Psychoanalysis best suits the interpretation on manipulation strategies, since it
goes beyond the surface interpretation or the hermeneutic method of interpretation of
data.

According to Ritzer and Ryan (2011:236), Freud emphasized that there are motives
that impel action and the unconscious, and that behind every sociological theory rests
some understanding of human motives. Symbolic interactions focus on how meaning
drives action, rational choice theories focus on the individual’s conscious weighing of
cost benefits, and ethno-methodological action is driven by habits and is taken for
granted. This knowledge influences the interpretation of data on how and why actions
and habits are taken for granted by most victims of manipulation. Freud insisted that
unconscious motives drive human action. He discovered the unconscious through his
analysis of dreams, mental illness, jokes, and the slip of the tongue (Freud 1970:236;
Gay, 1989:xii).

Freud, as indicated by Ritzer and Ryan (2011:236), applied his Psychoanalytic insight
to understanding socialogical phenomena:

96
 [Freud] emphasizes that the motives that impel actions are unconscious.
Behind every sociological theory rests some understanding of human
motives. Symbolic interactions focus on how meanings drive action;
rational choice theorists focus on individual ‘s conscious weighing of costs
and benefits; and ethno methodologies see action as driven by habits and
taken for granted knowledge (Ritzer & Ryan, 2011: 236)

Freud (1969) maintains that the motives that impel believers to religious practices are
unknown or replaced in the consciousness by others that are advanced in their stead.
He sees as the source of religion, the helpless infant longing for the father. This focus
on the unconscious motives derived from childhood experiences are regarded as
Freud’s fundamental contribution to sociology, which continue to have influence in
diverse fields such as the sociology of religion, gender concepts, and the sociology of
the family (Ritzer & Ryan, 2011:236).

Gellner (1985) concentrates on the social aspects that were absent from Freud. He
perceives the Psychoanalytic approach as a sociological theory and makes much of
the complex metaphorical construction of Psychoanalytical discourse including the
fusion of hydraulics and semantics. This leads to the conclusion that his work was
more sociological than philosophical. Gellner’s views influences the interpretation of
manipulation in folktales since it is a social practice and should be interpreted using
sociological theories of which the Psychoanalytic approach and Critical discourse
analysis are part.

Frosh (2010:37) believes that the Psychoanalytic approach is a social critique that
seeks to expose power situations that rely on the denial of opposition and the pretence
that it is necessary to maintain existing patterns of domination. Frosh (2010) agrees
that the psychoanalytic approach has the capacity to disrupt the complacent
acceptance of the status quo by revealing disturbances that lie behind it. He is certain
that there is nothing that is stable, since there is always pressure towards change. This
approach links very well with critical discourse analysis.

In support of the psychoanalytic approach, Dundes (1980) argues that the meaning of
folkloristic fantasy is unconscious. Among its functions, folklore provides a socially

97
sanctioned outlet for the expression of what cannot be articulated in the usual direct
way. For that reason, data in folktales and manipulation were interpreted looking
deeply into actions that cannot be articulated and that finally lead to manipulation.
Dundes’ arguments are visible in the jokes, folksongs, folktales, proverbs, children’s
songs, games and gestures of a culture. This assisted the researcher in her objectives
of unlocking the covert anxieties used by manipulators against their victims.

Dundes (1980:7) upholds that the ascription of one’s own feelings and qualities ’to
objects in the external world is accomplished without the individuals being consciously
aware of the fact. The individual perceives the external object as possessing the taboo
tendencies without recognizing their source in himself.

Kast (2009) concurs that tales often deal with anxiety that is seldom mentioned.
Therefore, part analytic interpretation is necessary for the narrowing of perception and
to understand some of the basic mental operations underlying the folktales as cultural
discourse. This psychological approach assisted the present study in the interpretation
of some of the anxiety encountered by victims of manipulation that are not uttered in
Siswati folktales, as well as the strategies used by manipulators to manipulate their
victims. Jeggle (2003), points out that the Psychoanalytical approach is relevant to the
discipline of the folklorist. In trying to explain the content of dreams and superstition,
Jeggle (2003) suggests that the unconscious is the most important element. All the
views above support Freud’s view on the Psychoanalytic approach as a method of
interpreting the unconscious. It is a theory of mind not of the physical, and can be used
outside the clinic as a research method.

3.3.5 Principles of Psychoanalysis

’Farell (1981) explains that Freud has provided the principal tenets on which
psychoanalytic theory is grounded. Freud explains the three forces of the
psychological apparatus as id, ego and superego. The id contains everything that is
inherited, everything that is present at birth, and instinct; it is the unconscious. The ego
is responsible for controlling the demands of the id and the instincts and serving as a
link between the id and the external world; therefore, the ego is the conscious. The

98
superego is responsible for the limitation of satisfactions and represents the influence
of others such as parents, teachers, and role models, as well as impact of racial,
societal and cultural traditions. All demands of the superego are managed by the id.
Freud defines qualities of the psychical process as being either conscious,
preconscious or unconscious (Freud, 1949:15). All ideas that we are aware of are
considered conscious, while preconscious ideas are defined as those that are capable
of becoming conscious, and unconscious ideas are defined as those that are not easily
accessible but can be inferred, recognized and explained through analysis (Farell,
1981:202)

Mitchell and Aron highlight that Psychoanalysis contains many multifaceted traditions
both clinical and conceptual. They draw certain features from Freud’s thoughts and
practice and associates it as a theory of the mind:

A psychoanalysis that does not draw on basic features of Freud’s thought

and practice would be virtually unrecognizable as psychoanalysis thinking
about mind in terms of unconscious processes; exploring the dialectic
between present and past; grounding states of mind in bodily
experiences; a careful, patient listening to the analyst’s associations; a
play in the dialectic between fantasy and reality; the focus on feelings
about the analyst (transference) and psychical obstacles to
uncomfortable thoughts and feelings (resistance) (Mitchell & Aron,
1999:ix).

The above quotation shows that the Psychoanalytic approach is a theory of mind. In
’Freud’s Psychoanalysis, the most recognized centre of interest lies in the emotions. It
emphasizes the psychological meaning of actions and objects, not their physical
appearance. Manipulation practices in Siswati folktales mostly deal with the
psychological meaning behind the actions and discourse of the folktale characters.

3.3.6 Criticism of Psychoanalysis

Like any other approach, the Psychoanalytical approach is criticized by scholars such
as Sherrin (1986), Farrell (1981), Cavell (1998), Mitchell and Aron (1999), Grunbaum
(1994), Medawar (1975), and Gabbard (1997), who argue that there is room for both

99
objectivity and subjectivity within the Psychological theory. Cavell (1998) avers that
whereas meaning may be constructed, truth is not. Our perception of truth may change
but not truth itself. Gabbard (1997) stresses the derivation of the term “objectivity” from
the word “object” when referring to the thinking, or mind, of the subject.

Although Freud (1949) claims that his theory is correct, even though many scholars
like Grunbaum (1994), pounds criticism to discredit his theory. and Medawar (1975)
contends that Freudian Psychoanalytic theory is lacking in empirical evidence and
relies too heavily on therapeutic achievements. Other scholars like Sherrin (1986) and
Farrell (1981), assert that Freud’s clinical data are flawed, inaccurate and selective
(Farrell, 1981:215).

Farrell argues that the actual method or techniques involved in Psychoanalysis, i.e.
the interpretation of dreams and free association, have been discredited. Grunbaum
(1994) indicates that Psychoanalysis is not a science and the principles upon which it
is grounded are inaccurate (Farrell, 1981:216).

Scholars such as Sherrin (1986) insist that Freud’s admirable heuristic hypothesis did
not come out of thin air. Farrell (1981:216) feels that Freud’s theory appears to
encourage analytical and psychodynamic practitioners to overlook the place and great
importance of ordinary common sense.

Ritzer and Ryan (2011:221) argue that the psychoanalytic approach is based on
Freud’s image of the individual and his notion of reality and the theoretical. The
individual’s perception and the world in which he or she resides are largely illusory
(Ritzer and Ryan, 2011:221). The most telling outside challenge to Psychoanalysis
have been the questions raised by Grunbaum (1994) about its empirical foundations
and mode of enquiry.

Most attacks are based on Freud’s character, the status accorded to his theory and
the midsections of his work. Mitchell and Aron (1999:xiv) mention that the
psychoanalytic approach is criticized for the following reasons:

100
  That Psychoanalysis is both a therapy and a body of knowledge has always
made for some problems.
 Psychoanalysis’ failure to clarify its conceptual foundations and mode of
enquiry.
 According to Psychoanalytic theories, the ground on which the individual
stands is paved with uncertainty and the reality to which he or she appeals is
highly suspect.
 Freud was concerned not with the “real” situation but with the individual’s
interpretation of it, i.e. to deconstruct such interpretation.
 Since the Psychoanalytic approach is presented by Freud as a form of
therapy, or treatment, treatment revolves primarily around the analysis of
transference. Transference is what the patient brings to the analytic situation.
This includes the patient’s characteristics, modes of conflict, perceptions,
expectations, object relations, or definitions of the situation. Such internalized
patterns tend to constrain the individual’s external relations and to create
problems that must be worked through.
 There is rhetorical debate between those who call themselves natural
scientists and those who maintain that Psychoanalysis is inherently
interpretation and hermeneutical, and should be studied as such. There are
also those who agree with the interpretive tradition, but maintain that
psychoanalysis goes beyond the hermeneutic method in that the impact of
interpretation can be subjected to empirical study (Mitchell & Aron,1999).

3.3.6.1 Critics on both Psychoanalysis and Freud’s

opinions

The Psychoanalytic approach has its own critics who vehemently dismiss the
methodology. Medawar (1975) argues that the rise of psychoanalysis to a position of
prominence in the twentieth century will come to be regarded as one of the most
stupendous intellectual confidence tricks of the twentieth century. Such critics argue
that the systematic appraisal of Freud’s contribution to the understanding of the

101
psychology and organization of the human mind has returned a negative verdict on
Freud as a scientist.

3.3.7 Achievements of Psychoanalysis

Although many scholars have criticized the Psychoanalytic approach as non-scientific,

some give credit to it.

Gellner posits that Psychoanalysis is not only a target but is also an institution, a
technique, an organization, an ethic, a theory of knowledge, an idiom, and a climate of
opinions. It contains theories on politics, history and aesthetics (Gellner, 1985:44).
Moore (2001) asserts that Psychoanalysis is also a reflection of humanity adapted for
our time. What people generally thought were random acts and slips of the tongue,
errors and accidents, turn out to be unconscious intention. He further acknowledges
that Psychoanalysis is an insistently individualizing theory that explains away our
deeper nature and our darker side. He further mentions that Psychoanalysis makes
meaning out of the contingency of the world and therefore reduces the world to human
scale. Moore (2001:89) indicates that some scholars like Kristeva (1983), employ the
Psychoanalytic approach to help clarify concepts of semiotic discourse (for instance,
in the phase of language occurring between mothers and children before development
of the more abstract symbolic language which society imposes).

Psychoanalysis has made an extensive contribution to folklore study. The most

important conclusion reached by Psychoanalytic work is that what we consider the
mind, as a mental process, i.e. consciousness, is only the transformed selection of the
whole mind derived from its deeper and unconscious layers and modified by content
with the stimuli of outer worlds. Spezzano (1993) regards Freud’s Psychoanalytic
approach as a prominent future of the world we live in despite its criticism. Spezzano
(1999:425) maintains that Psychoanalysis has every right to be what it is, since people
no longer need to be vulnerable to authority and claims from various quarters that they
should be something else because of their presumptions.

102
Westen and Gabbard specify that Freud’s focus is on psychic reality as opposed to
actual reality. They emphasize that psychic reality has been a cornerstone of the
Psychoanalytic approach:

Freud defined psychoanalysis (1) a theory of the mind or personality (2)

a method of investigation of unconscious processes and (3) a method of
treatment (Westen & Gabbard, 2008:58).

Westen and Gabbard (2008) do not concentrate much on the Psychoanalytic approach
as a method of treatment but focus on Freud’s psychoanalytic approach as a theory of
personality. They reveal that Psychoanalysis has stemmed from its method of
treatment to a method of enquiry and focus on evolution, its endurance and
contribution to the study of personality (Widdowson, 1995). The point is that the way a
person reacts to an event is determined by the way he or she experiences it. This in
turn is crucially influenced by motives, fantasies and affected ideas. Psychoanalysis,
like other sciences, seeks laws and attempts to establish casual connection among
events. In this case, psychological events such as thoughts, feelings and behaviours
are taken into consideration.

3.3.8 Strengths of Psychoanalysis and its implication for the study

Psychoanalysis as a theory addresses certain factors in the current study and can be
applied in practical ways, and fits with other related theories and withstands the test of
time. Psychoanalysis reflects most of the qualities of a good theory: it is falsifiable, able
to generate, and leads to new theories and ideas, thus it is recognized by other
scholars and analysts in the field. Psychoanalysis is accepted and is popular around
the globe, being exercised through the existence of numerous institutions,
organizations and conferences. Psychoanalysis has served as a catalyst to many
professionals in the field of psychology (Farrell 1981:202).

Psychoanalysis can also be used to describe or explain a vast array of other concepts
outside of the realm of the psychological field. This study employs the Psychoanalytic
approach since folktales are works of art and include the psychological stragem of
manipulation (Fairclough & Wodak 2009).

103
3.4 Conclusion

This chapter explained and justified the efficiency of Critical Discourse Analysis and
Psychoanalytic approach as theoretical frameworks that were carefully selected to
achieve the objectives of this study on manipulation in folktales. A brief background of
the two approaches were discussed and the views of different scholars from both fields
were addressed. The chapter also delved into criticism of the theories, their strengths,
and their implications for the study.

The strength and achievements of the Psychoanalytical approach were discussed to

inform the ongoing study on how to describe a vast array of concepts outside the realm
of psychological field, since the study will be based on sociological aspects as folktales
belong to the society and manipulation is practised in different social institutions. The
aims of Critical discourse analysis and the Psychoanalytic approach were outlined to
justify the choice of these approaches.

104
 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented a theoretical framework on which the research study
is grounded. The present chapter offers more in-depth information on the research
design and methodology. This chapter provides a detailed discussion of the research
design, sampling techniques, methods of collecting data, as well as data analysis. The
procedures of collecting data analysis are also discussed.

The study adopted a qualitative research design aligned with the purposive method of
sampling to explore manipulation in folklore with special focus on Siswati folktales. In
this chapter, the focus is on the qualitative method of investigation and data collection.
Some Siswati folktales that portray manipulation were purposively selected to be the
source of information in order to answer the research questions as part of qualitative
document analysis.

4.2 Research methodology and design

Research methodology refers to the plan or action a researcher is going to use when
undertaking a research project, while methods refer to the systematic order of
arrangement of the research. Ritchie, et al. (2014:45) indicate that a method of
research serves as a guideline on how the researcher is going to conduct his research.
Different methodologies are used in different research studies depending on the
research questions, and the research objectives of the research plan of action to be
used when undertaking research. Scholars like Leedy and Ormrod (1989:142),
describe research methodology as a general approach that the researcher takes in
carrying out the research project. This takes into consideration the way different
specific tools can be used to collect and analyse the data. On the other hand, Welman
and Kruger (2001:46) define a research design as a plan according to which
participants are identified and information is collected.

105
Drawing from the above scholars and the research plan, the selected research
methods and research designs were carefully selected to serve as a guideline in
collecting data for the present research. The following paragraphs provide a broad
discussion of the research methods.

4.2.1 Research methods

The choice of data collection methods depends mainly on the aims and objectives of
the research as well as the research questions. In search of answers to research
questions on manipulation in Siswati folktales, the researcher discusses the different
types of research methods and later justifies the choice of her specific method in the
collection of data.

Cohen et al. (2007:47) describe methods as a range of approaches used to gather

data based on inference and interpretation, and for explanation and prediction. They
further extend the meaning by including not only the methods of normative research
but also those associated with interpretive paradigms participant observation, role
playing, non-directive interviewing, episodes and accounts.

Cohen, et al. (2007:41) explain that if methods refer to techniques and procedures
used in the process of data gathering, the aim of methodology then is to describe
approaches to kinds of paradigms of research. Besides the description of methods,
the researcher selected qualitative methods looking at the main aim of methodology
to help her understand, in the broadest possible terms, that the main aim is not with
the products of scientific enquiry, but the process (Koplan, 1973).

Three major methods of research are common to most researchers, viz. the qualitative,
quantitative and triangulation method. Researchers are free to use any of these
research methods according to the desired style of their particular research. These
methods will be taken into consideration during data collection and analysis. The
following paragraphs provide a brief outline of these methods.

106
 4.2.1.1 Quantitative method

According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005:141), the quantitative method is a research

method in which data are gathered and analysed numerically. Quantitative research
relies upon variables that can be measured or numbered. According to the quantitative
method, data are collected, organised and interpreted through statistical techniques.
The research did not use this method, since the study is not interested in variables,
measurements and statistical data. The qualitative research method was used as the
main method of investigation in this research.

4.2.1.2 Qualitative method

Scholars such as Leedy and Ormrod (2005:142), define the qualitative approach as a
detailed and systematic examination of the contents of a particular body of material for
the purpose of identifying patterns, themes or foundations. Kirk and Miller (1968) view
qualitative research as an approach to study social research that involves watching
people in their own territories and intersecting with them in their own language or on
their own terms. Taylor (2005:1) defines qualitative research as:

A field of enquiry applicable to many disciplines and subject matters.

Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in depth understanding of human
behaviour. It investigates the why and how of decision-making and not
just the what, where and when. This method is often used to gain a
general sense of the phenomena and to form theories that can be further
tested using quantitative research methods.

Drawing from the above definitions, it is evident that the qualitative approach is
inductive with the purpose of describing multiple realities, developing deep
understanding and capturing everyday life from a human perspective. It is a process
of discovery of the phenomena being studied and interacts with participant while
collecting most data face-to-face from participants (Leedy & Ormrod 2005:93).
Although the present research did not draw information from participants face-to-face,
but from documents, the argument remains that the research will develop a deep
understanding of manipulation as a phenomenon that affects people daily.

107
 4.2.1.3 Justification of the choice of qualitative research

As in all research projects, there are reasons for the choice of a research method, the
present research is no exception. The choice of the research is guided by the research
questions and the research objectives. Qualitative research answers questions such
as what or how but it cannot answer the question of how many and it is centrally
concerned with understanding things rather than with measuring them (Gordon,
1999:35).

Qualitative research is described as a research method that refers to an in-depth study

of a phenomenon in a natural setting. This method aims at describing, explaining and
interpreting information in order to explore. According to Leedy and Ormrod,
(2005:143), the research process is content-bound, based on flexible guidelines and
a personal point of view. The data collected is informative, based on small samples
and loosely structured. The data collected are categorized into themes and are
analysed by inductive reasoning. Leedy and Ormrod’s definition is attested by Lang
and Heiss as follows:

Qualitative research is a study that relies on data collected via

open-ended narratives and observation. It is based on detailed
description of events, people and excerpts from various letters,
records and other documents thus it is basically verbal in in
database and analysis (Lang & Heiss, 1975:183).

In the process of explicating the research problem, the researcher looked at

manipulative behaviour experienced by folktale characters, and explored the depths,
richness and complexity inherent in the folktales, and described them to gain
understanding and to give meaning to the research problem. A qualitative method will
assist the researcher to get an in-depth understanding of the causes of manipulation
in folktales. The broad aim of the study is to investigate manipulation in folklore with
the focus on Siswati folktales that depict characters who display manipulative
behaviour in different settings. As discussed in the introduction, a qualitative research
design was considered as most suitable for this study.

108
Mills and Birks (2014:9) maintain that the purpose of a qualitative research study is to
examine phenomena that impact on the lived reality of individuals or groups in a
particular cultural and social context studied, firmly anchored in a methodological
school of thought. Such a study is finely textured and nuanced, producing a much
higher quality outcome. To investigate to what extent manipulation affects the mind
and social life of individual characters in folktales, the current study is based on the
social context. The question asked by the researcher in the first chapter is the one that
determines the methodology to be used and is the choice of methodology that guides
the researcher.

Leedy and Ormrod (2005: 94) add that qualitative research is used to answer
questions about the complex nature of phenomena, often with the purpose of
describing and understanding the phenomena from the participant’s point of view.
Since the qualitative approach is referred to as the interpretative, constructivist or post
positivist approach, it assisted the researcher in answering the research questions on
manipulation in folktales, the purpose of understanding manipulative behaviour, the
victims’ positive and negative behaviours, as well as the strategies used by
manipulators in Siswati folktales.

According to Silverman (2006:6), qualitative methods are suitable when a researcher

wants to explore people’s life histories and day-to-day behaviour; therefore, qualitative
methods are suitable to the current study, since manipulation occurs in different
institutions such as homes, offices, churches, and public and private institutions. The
above deliberations provided information on the justification of the qualitative research
method as the present researcher’s appropriate choice.

4.2.1.4 Nature of qualitative research methods

In the current study, data on manipulation in folktales were collected, analysed and
interpreted using qualitative methods. Silverman (2005:6) posits that qualitative
research is chosen because of what it offers, not by what it avoids, such as statistical
techniques and mechanics of the kind that quantitative methods use in surveys or
epidemiology. The researcher chose this method because it is appropriate to what she

109
wants to find out in her study, viz. manipulation in folklore with particular reference to
some Siswati folktales.

According to Silverman (2006:6), data collected qualitatively are characterised by

interpretations, descriptions and explanations of the phenomena under investigation.
There are certain characteristics that lead to the choice of qualitative methods as a
method of investigation in this research, as identified by scholars such as Silverman
(2006), Cresswell (1994; 2003) and Leedy and Ormrod (1989; 2005). Silverman (2006)
identifies characteristics of qualitative research as follows:

 its designs work with a relatively small numbers of cases;

 its methods can provide a deeper understanding of a social phenomenon;
 it is used to answer questions about the relationships among measured
variables with the purpose of explaining, predicting and controlling
phenomena. This approach is sometimes called the traditional, experimental
or positivist approach (Silverman, 2006:9).

Confirming the qualities of qualitative methods, Leedy and Ormrod (2005:94) also
mention some of the characteristics of qualitative researchers as follows:

 they seek a better understanding of complex situations. Their work is often

exploratory in nature and may use observation to build theory from the
ground up;
 their process is more holistic and emergent with a specific focus, design,
measurement instruments and interpretations developing and possibly
changing along the way. The researchers enter the setting with open minds,
prepared to immerse themselves in the complexity of the situation and
interact with their participants. Categories emerge from the data leading to
“context-bound” information patterns and/or the ones that help to explain the
phenomenon under study;
 they are often described as being the research instruments because the bulk
of their data collection is dependent on their personal involvement in the
setting;

110
  they tend to select a few participants who can shed light on the phenomenon
under study;

 they collect both verbal and nonverbal data;
 they make considerate use of inductive reasoning. They make many specific
observations and then draw inferences about longer and more general
phenomena. Furthermore, their data analysis is more subjective in nature,
they scrutinize the body of data in search of pattern subjectivity identified that
the data reflects;
 they construct interpretative narratives from their data and try to capture the
complexity of the phenomena under study; they have a more personal
literary style and often include the participants’ own language and
perspective. All researchers must be able to write clearly and qualitative
researchers must be especially skilled in this area.

Leedy and Ormrod (1989:96) lists their views on the characteristics of qualitative
research methods as follows:

 The purpose is to describe, explain, explore and interpret in order to build a

theory;
 The nature of the research process is holistic with unknown variables,
flexible guidelines, emergent methods, is context bound, and allows the
expression of personal views;
 The data is textual and /or based on informative small samples, loosely
structured or small standardised observations and interviews;
 Data is analysed by searching for themes and categories. It acknowledges
that analysis is subjective and potentially biased. Inductive reasoning is used
to determine meaning;
 Findings are communicated in words, narrative individual quotes, personal
voice and literary styles.

111
 Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006: 5) concur with Leedy and Ormrod (1989:96) when they
indicate that qualitative research is holistic and humanistic in its approach. Hesse-
Biber and Leavy (2006: 5) further mention that its holism is expressed in a description
of behaviour that encompasses the context. Borg, et al. (1993:194) contrast this by
demonstrating that the purpose of qualitative methodology is to describe a given set
of phenomena through certain interventions.

The above-mentioned characteristics motivated the researcher to follow the qualitative

approach since manipulation represented in folktales is experienced daily in the lives
of the emaSwati community. The collected data are textual and based on an
informative small sample of selected Siswati folktales. Moreover, analysis will be done
through searching for themes and categories, and findings will be communicated in
words.

4.3 Research design

Research design refers to the research process and to steps taken to complete the
research process (Babbie & Mouton,2001:75). Similarly, Kumar (2005:84) posits that
a research design is a plan that pronounces the conditions and procedures to be
undertaken when collecting and analysing data. A research design functions as the
master plan of the research project to be undertaken. It casts light on how the proposed
project is going to be conducted in order to answer the research questions.

Selltiz, et al. (1962) as cited by Kumar (2005:84), define a research design as the
arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data in the manner that aims
to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy and procedure. A
research design provides guidelines on the choice of population, methods of data
collection, choice of sampling methods, and eventually the analysis of data and validity
of the research. Since there are different research designs prevailing in qualitative
research, the researcher chose a research design suitable for her anticipated research
project. The design has aspects such as population, sampling techniques, and sample.
Kumar (2005:84) highlights that the functions of research design relate to the
identification and development of procedures and a logistical arrangement is required

112
to undertake a study. The importance of the quality of those procedures is emphasized
to ensure validity, objectivity and accuracy.

The research questions posed in chapter one influenced and guided the researcher in
the selection of an appropriate methodology and development of the research. It
served as a map for the choice of research design (Mills & Birks, 2014:10).

This section serves as the engine of the research project. It lays the foundation by
providing the outline of how the research is conducted and provides full details on the
choice of methods of collecting data, the population and sampling that is suitable for
the research project.

4.3.1 Population from which the samples were drawn

Jegede (1994:114) declares that population is the “universe” about which the
investigator wishes to make generalisations and the totality with which all observations
and investigations are concerned. Tuckman (1999) indicates that a study’s population
is the group (of things or people) about which the researcher wants to gain information
and draw conclusions. Silverman attests to the above ideas as follows:

Population is a term that sets parameters on the study unions from which
a sample is chosen. In other words, a population outline specific and
realistic characteristics that the researchers are interested in studying in
order to answer research questions posed at the outset of the study
(Silverman, 2005:129).

On the other hand, Polit and Beck (2006:258) refer to the population as the total
number of people or elements that fit the specific set specification of the study, also
known as the target population; the criteria for inclusions or exclusions should
therefore be clearly stated. The population of this study is selected from Siswati
folktales that depict manipulative practice.

A large population usually makes it difficult and sometimes expensive to collect data
and almost impossible to analyse the data in a research project. Russell (2013:129)
agrees that studying the entire population may pose a threat to the validity of the data.

113
It would be impossible to research all Siswati folktales and record the data; there might
be errors and it would be impossible to interpret so much data. A well-chosen sample
of Siswati folktales made it possible to complete the research. The researcher
considered it important to select a sample of Siswati folktales that will represent the
research focus.

4.3.2 Sampling

Leedy and Ormrod (2005:144) state that qualitative researchers draw their data not
from a variety of people but from objects, textual materials, audio-visuals and
electronic records. The particular entities they select comprise their sample and the
process of selecting it is called sampling. How a researcher identifies a sample,
depends on what research questions he or she wants to answer. More often,
qualitative researchers are intentionally non-random in their selection of data
sources; instead, their sampling is purposeful. They select those individuals, or
objects that will yield the most information about the topic under investigation.
Corbetta describes sampling as:

the procedure through which we pick out from a set of units that make up
the object of the study (population) a limited number of cases (sample)
chosen according to criteria that enables the result obtained by studying the
sample to be extrapolated to the whole population (Corbetta, 2003:210).

Gay maintains that:

In qualitative research, the sample includes people and the environment

whereby a researcher locates people who meet certain criteria and who
are willing to participate in the research project from a larger group a
researcher selects the sample which yields desired information
(1996:213).

Sampling in qualitative research is theoretically grounded, rather than statistical. In

other words, groups or settings are selected to be studied on the basis of the relevance
to the study in order to gather relevant information from which conclusions can be
drawn to develop or build theories (Silverman, 2005;130). The researcher selected

114
Siswati folktales that are relevant and investigated manipulative behaviour in order to
meet the set objectives of the study.

Neuman (1998; 202) distinguishes between population element and sampling frames:

A researcher draws a sample from a large pool of cases or elements. A

sampling element is the unit of analysis. It can be a person, a group, an
organization, a written document or symbolic message or even a social
action (e.g. an arrest, divorce or a kiss) that is being measured. The large
pool is the population, which has an important role in sampling. Sometimes
the term universe is used interchangeably with population.

4.3.3 Reasons for sampling

Sampling is a process of selecting an option of the population to represent the total

population and to represent the total findings from the sample that represent the rest
of the group (Burns & Grove, 2001:365; 2007:29). Therefore, there are reasons for
sampling in any research project.

Corbetta (2003:210) explains why sampling is used in social research and that it offers
several advantages, e.g.:

 Cost of data collection;

 Time required for the collection and processing of data;
 Organisation, in that there is no need to recruit, train and supervise a huge
number of interviews, as in the case for a census of population;
 Depth and accuracy in that the lesser organization complexity enables
resources to be concentrated on quality control.
According to Corbetta (2003:212), a sample is a set of sampling units or cases
selected from the population units and which represent that population. Therefore, the
population is the object to be investigated, and the samples are the investigating tool.
The researcher was guided by the research objectives to choose the correct sampling
methods and techniques. Siswati folktales is the population from which the sample

115
was selected and folktales that depict manipulative behaviour were selected to
represent the whole population of folktales.

4.3.4 Sampling technique

Patton (1994:184) asserts that there are no rules in choosing the size in qualitative
research. Sampling techniques provide a range of methods that enable a researcher
to reduce the amount of data he or she needs to collect by considering only data from
a subgroup rather than all the possible cases of elements. The choice of sampling
techniques is dependent on the research questions and objectives. Therefore, the
research questions and objectives that guide a researcher to estimate the
characteristics of the population from a sample statically require probability sampling,
whereas research questions and objectives that do not require such generalization can
make use of non-probability sampling techniques (Saunders, et al., and 2003:178).

Cohen, et al. (2007:110) distinguish between the two main methods of sampling as
probability sampling and non-probability sampling. They explain the difference
between them as follows: in a probability sample, the chances of members of the wider
population being selected for the sample are known and every member of the wider
population has an equal chance of being included in the sample; inclusion or exclusion
is a matter of chance and nothing else.

In a non-probability sample, chances of members of the wider population being

selected for the sample are unknown while some members of the wider population
being selected for the sample are known; some members of the wider population are
excluded, and others are included. Not every member of the wider population had an
equal chance of being included in the sample; the researcher deliberately, purposely
selected a particular section of the wider population. The following paragraphs provide
a brief explanation of how these methods of sampling work, since they influence the
choice of sampling technique in this research.

116
 4.3.4.1 Probability sampling

Probability sampling techniques are a kind of sampling in which subjects are drawn
from a population in known probabilities. McMillan and Schumacher (2004:143)
indicate that in probability sampling, the subject is drawn from a larger population in
such a way that the probability of selecting each member of the population is known.
He adds that this kind of sampling is conducted to provide the estimate of what is true
for a population from that particular small group. Corbetta (2003:229) identifies
different kinds of probability sampling designs and names them simple random
sampling, stratified sampling or systematic sampling.

 Random sampling is where each member of the population or /group has an

equal chance of being selected. A simple random sample is obtained when all
units of the population have equal probability of being included in the sample.
 Systematic sampling. In this sampling design, all sample units have equal
chances of being selected. The selection process is no longer random but
systematically selected after a given interval.
 Stratified sampling. This is a sampling design whereby a researcher divides
the population into sub-populations based on supplementary information. After
dividing the sample into strata, a researcher randomly draws a sample from
each sub-population.

4.3.4.2 Non-probability sampling

Non-probability sampling designs are used when the number of elements in a

population is unknown or cannot be individually identified. As the sampling technique
cannot be random, the selection of elements depends upon other considerations.
Corbetta (2003:287) clarifies that a range of non-probability sampling techniques is
available that should not be discounted, as they provide sensible alternatives to select
cases to answer research questions and to address objectives. Kumar (2005:178)
identifies four non-random sampling designs that are used in qualitative research and
defines them as follows:

117
  Quota sampling. This is a sampling design where the researcher draws his
sample from a location convenient to him or her. It is guided by some visible
characteristics such as gender or race of the population under investigation. A
researcher identifies people with visible, relevant characteristics and asks them
to participate in the research until he reaches the number of suitable
respondents.
 Accidental sampling/convenient sampling. This is a sampling design that is
convenient and easy to access the sampling population by the researcher, but
it is not guided by visible characteristics so some people consulted may not
have the required information. It is used mostly in market research and
newspaper reports. (Kumar, 2005:178)

 Snowball sampling. Kumar (2005:178) regards snowball sampling as a design

whereby the sample is selected using networks. The researcher starts
collecting information from individuals in a group or an organisation. After
collecting the information, he asks them to identify other potential informants
and the identified informants identify others until the information reaches its
highest pick.
 Purposive sampling

Neuman (2006; 222) defines purposive sampling as a non-random sampling method

in which the researcher uses a wide range of methods to locate all possible cases of
a highly specific and difficult to reach population. Neuman (2000:519) maintains that
purposive or judgmental sampling “enables you to use your judgment to select what
will best enable you to answer your research questions and to meet your objectives”.
This form of sample is often used to select cases particularly informative cases.

Neuman (1997: 206) highlights that purposive sampling is an acceptable kind of

sampling for a special situation. It uses the judgment of an expert in selecting cases
or it selects cases with a specific purpose in mind. Neuman (1997:206) mentions that
purposive sampling is appropriate in the following three situations:

118
  The researcher uses it to select unique cases that are especially informative,
e.g. a researcher who wants to use content analysis because it is trend setting;
 A researcher may use purposive sampling to select members of a difficult to
reach a specialized population. He or she uses subjective information and
experts to identify a sample for inclusion in the research project;
 The third situation for purposive sampling occurs when a researcher wants to
identify particular types of cases for depth investigation (Cohen, et al.,
2007:115).
Cohen et al. (2007:115) also mentions that in many cases purposive sampling is used
to access “knowledgeable people”, i.e. those who have in-depth knowledge about a
particular issue maybe by virtue of their professional role, power, and access to
networks, expertise or experience. In purposive sampling, often a feature of qualitative
research, researchers handpick the cases to be included in the sample based on their
judgement or the typicality or possession of the particular characteristics being sought
i.e. they build a sample that is satisfactory to their specific needs (Cohen, et al.,
2007:114).

The researcher has purposely selected purposive sampling. She used her judgment
to select folktales that depict manipulative behaviour from the whole population of
folktales in books. She believes that the selected folktales have the information needed
to answer the research question and meet the research objectives.

4.3.5 Sample size

Informants of knowledge

Fifteen (28) folktales were selected and analysed to determine manipulation practices
in folktales. The analysis was used to gain information to assist in providing answers
to the research problems and the research questions. Tape recorders were used to
record some of the folktales from human informants as secondary sources.

119
 Desktop research

Although manipulation in folktales has not been adequately studied by previous

scholars, folktales have been researched by many African scholars who investigated
different topics. The researcher considered the work of other African researchers on
folktales to avoid duplication of the research study.

Other secondary resources

Relevant library books, magazines and journals were consulted to assist the research
project in obtaining answers to the research questions.

4.4 Method of data collection

LeGreco in Mills and Birks (2014:75) asserts that discourse analysis focuses on talk
and text. Its related methods of data collection are almost exclusively qualitative and
include recordings of naturally occurring speech, interviews, observations and relevant
text.

Data is regarded by Leedy and Ormrod (2005:93) as raw material generated or

collected through sources such as interviews, observations, literature, documents and
artefacts for use in qualitative research. The present study is rooted in qualitative
research methods, therefore qualitative data gathering methods were utilized for
analysis.

According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005:93), data and methodology are inextricably
interdependent. For this reason, the researcher took into account the nature of the
data that were collected in the resolution of the problem and that were aligned with the
methodology used in this research. Qualitative methods and purposive sampling
techniques were used for collecting data in this research.

4.4.1 Qualitative methods of data collection

Corbetta (2003:287) considers observing, asking and reading as the fundamental

features underlying the techniques of qualitative research. Kumar (2005:119) identifies
two major approaches to collecting data about a phenomenon: secondary data and

120
primary data. Secondary data is the information that is already available and needs
only to be extracted and analysed according to the chosen method. This kind of
available data includes documents, or earlier research, found primarily in published
sources such as articles, journals, magazines and books. Primary sources are the
kinds of data found in observations, interviews and case studies arising from the
researcher’s direct engagement, particularly with people. Qualitative methods of
collecting data selected as methods of investigation in this researchare discussed to
justify the researcher ‘s decision to choose them. Patton (2002:4) mentions three kinds
of data collection in qualitative research and defines them as follows:

 Observation. Fieldwork descriptions of activities, behaviours, actions,

conversations, impersonal interactions, organization or community process,
or any other observable aspects of human experiences. This kind of data
consist of field notes.
 Interviews. When conducting interviews, open-ended questions and probes
yield in-depth responses about people’s experiences, perceptions, opinions,
feelings and knowledge.
 Documents. These may include written material and other documents from
organizational, clinical or program records, memoranda and correspondence,
official publications and reports, personal diaries, letters, artistic works,
photographs and memorabilia, as well as open-ended surveys.

4.4.2 Types of Data

Sounders, et al. (2003:188) distinguish between primary and secondary data that must
be considered to answer the research questions. In their view, primary data are new
data collected for the purpose of answering research questions and meeting the
objectives of the research. Secondary data were collected for some other purposes.
Secondary data include both raw and published material.

121
 4.4.2.1 Primary sources

A number of primary sources can be utilized in gathering data. It all depends upon the
purpose of the researcher. The following paragraphs will discuss the different kinds of
primary resources.

Kellehear (1993: 69) states that documents, archives and libraries may be sources of
primary source data or for using a so-called secondary source as a primary data
source (newspapers, textbooks, novels, etc.). Registries, archives, libraries and
museums may supply both the data and the means to analyse it.

Gidley, in Seal describes primary sources as follows:

Primary sources are actual records that have survived from the past,
which may include text such as letters or diaries, material artefacts like
articles of clothing or shards of bone, visual artefacts which such
photographs, audio-visual source such as film or taper recording. These
were produced in conditions of proximity to the event described (Seal,
2004:249).

Secondary sources are accounts created by people writing at some distance in either
space or time from the event described, e.g. a historical textbook written by someone
who did not experience or witness the event being described.

The present research will not be using most of the sources mentioned above; instead,
folktales taken from folktale books and directly from storytellers will be used as primary
data for analysis in this study.

Sounders, et al. (2003:190) divide secondary data into three main groups, viz.
documentary, multiple source, and survey-based data.

122
  Documentary secondary data. Sounders, et al. (2003:190) claim that
documentary secondary data can be used in research projects that also use
primary data collection methods. However, a researcher can use them on
their own or with other sources of secondary data, in particular for historical
research. Documentary secondary data can include written documents such
as notices, correspondence, minutes of meetings, reports, diaries, transcripts
of speeches, administrative and public records, journals, books, magazine
articles, and newspapers.
Sounders, et al. (2003:190) assert that documentary secondary data include
non-written documents such as tape and videos recordings, pictures,
drawings, films and television programmes.
 Survey-based secondary data usually refer to data collected by
questionnaires that have already been analysed for their original purpose.
Such data can refer to organisations, people or households. As such, they
are made available as compiled data tables or as a computer readable
matrix of raw data for secondary analysis, e.g. census, continuous and
regular surveys.
 Multiple sources secondary data can be based entirely on documentary or
survey data or can be an amalgam of the two. This kind of data are common
in documents for company information. According to Leedy and Ormrod
(2005:93), A researcher could use written document to provide qualitative
data and could be used to generate statistical measures.
 Oral history narratives are part of historical oral traditions that form oral
history that was handed down from generation to generation by word of
mouth. Oral narratives are more about personal experiences, whereas
historical, social or cultural events are the subject of all history.

Qualitative methods use both secondary and primary sources when collecting data.
Therefore, the researcher selected documentary data as the main source for collecting
data. Folktales were selected from books and were analysed to answer the research
questions. The following paragraphs will give detailed information on document
analysis.

123
4.6 Documents

Ben Gidley, in Seal (2004:25), describes documentary sources as written sources such
as personal letters, diaries, scrapbooks, memoirs, legislations, newspaper clippings,
business accounts, and marriage contracts. These records might have been produced
at the time of the event described or sometime later. Corbetta (2003:287), concurs that
documents are any given material that provides information on a given social
phenomenon and which exist independently of the researcher’s actions. He
differentiates between documents produced by individuals and documents produced
by institutions for purposes other than social research, but for cognitive purposes.
Personal documents are produced by individuals and are private in nature. They are
also called expressive documents, since they express the feelings, record affairs from
a personal perspective, and more generally, they record the personality of the
individual who produces them. Autobiographies, diaries, letters, oral testimony, and
social documents include material traces especially in disciplines such as archaeology,
history and anthropology. Unlike personal documents, institutional documents
generally have a public. They consist of written texts and do not only concern the
memorable moments of society or culture but also and especially the daily lives of
ordinary people (Cobetta, 2003:306).

4.6.1 Use of documents

Documents take on a multitude of forms such as field notes, diaries and journals,
records, biographies, autobiographies, formal records, timesheets, timetables,
technical documents, minutes of meetings, samples of students’ work, memos, emails,
reports, statistics, correspondence, plans, pamphlets, advertisements, prospectuses,
directories, archives, stories, annals, chronicles, photographs, artefacts,
conversations, speeches, policy documents, newspaper articles, and public records
(Prior 2003:173).

The researcher was not interested in all documents mentioned by the above scholar
but considered books on folktales as the main source of information.

124
4.6.2 Advantages of documents

Corbetta (2003:287) asserts that documents are produced independently of the

actions of the researcher and therefore differ, i.e. the information is non-reactive in the
sense that it is not subject to possible distortion due to the interaction between the
researcher and the subject studied. Documents can also be used to study the past.

There are different kinds of institutional documents. Corbetta classifies institutional

documents according to their sources into mass media, narratives, educational texts,
folktales, judicial material, political documents, administrative and business
documents, and physical traces (Corbetta 2003:287). Besides such different kinds of
institutional documents, the researcher selected folktales as the main document for
analysis.

In support of the advantages of document analysis, Prior (2003:87) postulates that

documents are useful in rendering more visible the phenomena under study, however
they have to be taken in conjunction with the whole range of other factors occurring at
the same time (Prior, 2003:173).

Bailey (1994), as cited by Cohen, et al. (2007:220), lists the following attractions of
document analysis:

 It can enable the researcher to reach inaccessible persons or subjects, as in

the case of historical research;
 Some documents enable large samples to be addressed (e.g. registers of
births, marriages and deaths, census returns, and obituaries in newspapers);
 Documents written live and in situ, may catch the dynamic situation at the
time of writing. Some documents may catch personal feelings that would not
otherwise surface (e.g. letters, diaries and confessions), especially if they are
very personal;
 Using a library collection or archive in a library in a central location, could
save costs and time;

125
  Documents in the public domain written by skilled professionals may contain
more valuable information and insights than those written by relatively
uninformed amateurs.

4.7 Ethical considerations

According to Kellehear (1993:11), research ethics refers to the responsibility that

researchers have towards each other, the people who are being researched, and the
wide society that supports that research. Boom and Ling (2010:189) maintain that we
should be as ethical when dealing with others as we are in our personal lives, e.g.
loyalty, honesty, and integrity are some of the ethical issues in research that need to
be addressed.

Regarding the above discussion, the researcher is expected to respect the safety and
welfare of the participants and protect their confidences and identity, and to request
permissions before engaging with participants. The researcher should also guard
against using the theoretical or empirical work of others without acknowledgement.
The biggest problem in conducting a research that includes human behaviour is not
selecting the right sample size or marking the right measurement but it is doing those
things ethically, so you can live with the consequences of your actions. Methods are
about ways of proceeding while ethics concerns itself with the most socially
responsible way of doing this (Kellerhear, 1993:11).

According to (Kellerhear, 1993:11), ethics is always about fair and honest dealings
whether towards active participants, colleagues, state agencies, or owners of
resources, for instance, diaries. He further emphasizes the following:

 One should not ignore copyright restrictions, since they protect privacy and
ownership. Every reasonable attempt to ascertain the copyright owner
should be taken and permission should be sought;
 One should take care not to plagiarize the work of others. Ideas and tracks of
text from written records of libraries should always be acknowledged with the
appropriate reference in the text (Kelleher, 1993:71).

126
 The present research did not use human beings as a source of information, but folktale
books as documents served as the main source of information. Although there was no
human contact, the University of South Africa’s procedures were strictly followed, i.e.
the researcher applied for ethical clearance via the ethics committee in submitting her
proposal. As books, rather than people, were used as the researcher’s main source of
information, no potential hazards and precautions needed attention; however, to avoid
plagiarism, all books that were used as sources were cited and listed in the
bibliography.

4.8 Conclusion

In this section the research methods, research design, data collection, population, and
sampling techniques were presented and discussed. Methods of data collection were
addressed as well as ethical issues. Even though the research used documents as the
primary data, ethical issues such as plagiarism and copyright were discussed to
support the trustworthiness of the study.

127
 CHAPTER 5: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Introduction

The previous chapter dealt intensively with the methodology and methods used in this
study. This chapter focuses on the presentation and analysis of data collected from
Siswati folktales that depict manipulative behaviour. The data were presented and
analysed with the aim of finding answers to the research questions. Neuman
(1997:426) maintains that data analysis entails a search for patterns in data, recurrent
behaviour, objects, or body of knowledge. Once a pattern has been identified, it is
interpreted in terms of a social theory or the setting in which it occurred. Based on the
above, the data collected from the selected Siswati folktales were analysed, using
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) and the Psychoanalytic approach as the chosen
approaches of interpreting the data.

According to Leedy and Ormrod (1989:150), there is no single right way of analysing
the data in a qualitative study, however, the researcher must sort out the information,
categorise it, and gradually, divide it into sub-sets of themes through inductive
reasoning. Neuman concurs that:

Qualitative analysis does not draw on a large well-established body of

formal knowledge from mathematics and statistics. The data are in the
form of words, which are relatively imprecise, diffused and context based
and can have one meaning (Neuman, 1997:420).

In view of the above, this researcher broke down the data into small units, in the form
of summaries and categorised them into themes that were identified from the folktales
themselves.

Other than the coding and writing of memos that can be used by most researchers in
their analysis, Neuman (1997:426) identifies more specific methods of analysing
qualitative data such as successive approximation, the illustrative methods, analytic
comparison, domain analysis, and ideal types. The researcher did not consider all

128
 these methods, but deliberately selected analytic comparison to analyse the data
collected from folktales that depict manipulative behaviour displayed by characters in
the folktales. The researcher developed ideas about regularities or patterned relations
displayed by characters in the folktales. She did not analyse universal laws, but only
regularities within the social context of Siswati.

5.2 Analytic comparison

According to Neuman (2000), analytic comparison refers to the method of agreement

and the method of difference. In the method of agreement, the researcher focuses on
what is common across the different Siswati folktales that depict manipulative
behaviour. She also looks at common outcomes, as well as common causes of
whatever is common. The researcher believes that common outcomes cannot be
explained by one common cause.

In the method of difference, the researcher first looks at cases that were similar in
many respects, but differ in a few critical ways. She also looked at instances where
cases had similar outcomes and causal features, and where cases differed on
outcomes and causal features. Some cases may have common causal features but
differ in outcomes (Neuman, 1997:426).

Neuman (1997:427) pronounces that data analysis involves examining, sorting out,
categorising, evaluating, comparing, synthesising and contemplating the raw and
recorded data. In this study, the researcher identified themes common in all the
folktales, especially those that may contribute to the causal factors of manipulative
behaviour, as well as those that may contribute to outcomes of manipulative behaviour
in Siswati folktales. According to Oosthuizen (1977:79), a theme is never stated, but
is revealed through the playing out of conflict and resolution in the image that is being
objectified. The theme is revealed in performance, while conflict and resolution provide
material for developing a theme. Given the above quotation, themes were developed
from the selected folktales. Russell (2013:491) concurs with Neuman (1997:426) when
he asserts that data analysis is the application of techniques in the treatment of the
collected data to achieve research outcomes. Analytic induction is a formal qualitative

129
 method employed for building up a causal explanation of a phenomenon from a close
examination of cases and the application of the rules of logic. He further explains that
these rules are formalised as rules of inductive exercise and are categorised as
methods of agreement and methods of difference. He maintains that this method
provides a strong basis for analytic induction (Mill,1998:259). Therefore, the
researcher chose the method of agreement and the method of difference as methods
of analysis in this study. The reason behind the researcher’s choice is that she
intended to find out if there were logical discourses that may provide answers to the
research questions. Furthermore, the researcher extracted some of the discourses
used in folktales to depict the manipulative behaviour of the characters in the selected
folktales.

A summary of each folktale is provided for analysis. Full versions of the folktales are
provided in the appendices.

5.3 Summaries of folktales

Folktale 1: Ncedze (Fantail)

The folktale is about an election that was to be held by all birds. The birds wanted to
elect a leader who would be their king. Some birds were campaigning, trying to
convince others that they are potential leaders. Birds’ names were suggested for their
various characteristics, such as intelligence, power, strength, and endurance. Some
preferred a bird that could fly higher than the others to be their leader, while others
based their choices on other physical attributes. At last, the birds reached an
agreement that a bird that will fly high and for a long time without getting tired will be
crowned as their king. On the set date all the birds flew. Ncedze (Fantail), the smallest
in stature, and one of the candidates, climbed on the wings of Dlangala (Eagle). Mighty
Dlangala was unaware that he was carrying Ncedze, his competitor. When Ncedze
saw that Dlangala was tired, he climbed off his wings, fresh and energetic, and flew
higher for some time, while Dlangala landed. Dlangala knew that he had won the race,
hence he broke the news of Ncedze’s trickery. Ncedze was disappointed that Dlangala

130
exposed his trickery and that the other birds agreed because they knew him as a dirty
trickster. Therefore, Dlangala was crowned king of all the birds.

Folktale 2: Sitsa Imphungutje (Jackal the Enemy)

The folktale is about Chudze (Cock) and Kati (Cat) who were friends sharing the same
house. Kati was responsible for household duties, while Chudze went to look for food.
Whenever Kati went out, he warned Chudze not to open the door to anyone.
Mphungutje (Jackal) came and knocked at the door, and Chudze refused to open on
several occasions, telling Mphungutje that Kati had said that he must not open the
door to anyone. Mphungutje then kept on pleading with Chudze until Chudze
eventually opened the door for him. Mphungutje immediately grabbed Chudze in his
mouth but fortunately, Kati came to Chudze’ s rescue. The following day Mphungutje
came back with a different story and tricked Chudze again. This shows that Chudze
did not learn from his mistakes. Fortunately, Kati was there to rescue him again.

Folktale 3: Lohheyane (Hawk)

This folktale is about Lohheyane (Hawk), the big bird. Lohheyane was staying with a
family of chickens in one bush. Since there was a famine in the land, Lohheyane
decided to go to some far-away places in search of food. Before her departure, she
instructed the chickens to look after her eggs until she returned. The chicken family
agreed, hoping that when Lohheyane returned, they would also benefit. Lohheyane
went away and took a long time to come back. The chicken family decided to go and
look for Lohheyane, leaving the eggs unattended. But Lohheyane was nowhere to be
found and the chicken family returned to their bush. On their way back they
remembered that they had been assigned to take care of Lohheyane’s eggs. On
arriving home, they found that a house snake had eaten all the eggs. Fortunately, a
man nearby adopted the chickens. On coming back, Lohheyane found that her eggs
had been stolen, and the chicken family were not there. Lohheyane went out looking
for the chicken family, and found them in the man’s house. Angrily she exclaimed that
she would feed on the chickens’ chicks for the rest of her life.

131
Folktale 4: Tinkhomo letimbili (The Two Cows)

The folktale is about two cows who lived in a big bush and failed to attend a meeting
called by King Lion. They were afraid that the King was going to kill them for their
defiance so they decided to go and present their case and offer their apologies for not
being able to attend the meeting because their calves were sick. The king was furious
and, did not accept their apologies and demanded to know who they thought was the
most important – him or their calves. Seeing that the king was angry, the cows ran
away. The king followed them. The one cow ran to the nearby house but the other cow
decided to face the wrath of King Lion. She fought with the king and prevailed against
him. As they both had ability to fight, they remained together in the bush.

Folktale 5: Imphangele (Guineafowl)

The folktale is about Mphangele (Guineafowl) who was very careful at all times. Each
time she laid eggs, she made sure that the place was safe, but even though she was
careful, people always stole her eggs. Every time they wanted to steal her eggs, they
would sing and flatter her about her beauty and her dotted feathers. One day
Mphangele decided to move away from the people. She met a snake who was injured
and told him that her eggs were always stolen by some people. In response, the snake
told her that he was bleeding because the people hurt him. The two joined forces to
get revenge. They agreed that the snake would hide under Mphangele ’s nest each
time she laid her eggs. When the people came to take the eggs, the snake would bite
them.

Folktale 6: Inja nelikati (The Dog and the Cat)

The story is about Inja (Dog) and Kati (Cat) who lived together. They got on well with
one another until their owner divided their duties. Kati was to serve inside the house,
while InjaNja was to serve outside. Inja complained about heavy rains and the cold
weather outside. Kati realised that Inja’s complaint might cause the housemaster to
change his decision. Kati then came up with a plan to brainwash Inja; ironically telling
Inja that serving inside the house caused her to be tormented by lice, she also had no
time to sleep, because she had to chase after rats all night. This explanation convinced

132
Inja that it was better to continue to work outside the house. However, Inja eventually
realised that Kati was living a wonderful life inside the house, eating delicious food,
while he was given bones. InjaNja became angry, but there was nothing he could do
except chase the cat every day.

Folktale 7: Sihhanya neligundvwane (The Wild Cat and the Rat)

The story is about Sihhanya (Wildcat) and Gundvwane (Rat) who lived in the same
bush. The two enjoyed a good relationship. Gundvwane worked faithfully for Sihhanya.
At some point Sihhanya went away in search of food, leaving behind Gundvwane with
her kittens, but Sihhanya took a long time before returning. Gundvwane was worried
that the young ones would die of hunger and decided to go out in search of food herself
so that the young ones would have something to eat. In the same way, Gundvwane
also went away for a long time without finding food. Unfortunately, the lion came and
ate all the kittens. On returning, Gundvwane realised that the kittens were nowhere to
be found, and was terrified that Sihhanya was going to kill him. Gundvwane decided
to go to a nearby house and ask for a job as a servant. After some time, Sihhanya
came to the same house and was offered a job to hunt down the person who was
stealing their mealie meal. Obviously, that person was Gundvwane. Sihhanya then
started chasing after Gundvwane every day, and the latter escaped by digging a hole
and staying in there during the day, and going looking for food at night.

Folktale 8: Imphungutje nelichudze (The Jackal and the Cock)

The story is about Mphungutje (Jackal), who went out in search of food. He saw
Chudze (Cock) crowing in a tree. They greeted each other and Mphungutje requested
that Chudze come down so that he could narrate an interesting story for him. Chudze
refused but asked Mphungutje to give the highlights of the story. Hungry Mphungutje
assured Chudze that there was no more enmity between animals, and that they would
stay together as one family. Chudze was suspicious that this might not be true, and
told Mphungutje that his relatives were coming to visit, and that perhaps they were
also bringing the same good news. The relatives were dogs. On hearing that the

133
relatives were dogs, Mphungutje ran away, even though he had reported that there
would be no enmity between animals any more.

Folktale 9: Chakijane nebutulujane bakhe (Mongoose and his Trickery)

The folktale is about Chakijane (Mongoose), who announces that King Bhubesi (Lion)
is his horse, and is wondering why the animals would respect a horse and not a horse
rider. This announcement reached the King’s ears. The King was very angry and went
searching for Chakijane. When he ultimately found him, he asked him about the
announcement. Chakijane denied the allegations and suggested that they both go to
the animals and ask them what happened so that he could clear his name. This
provided a good opportunity for him to prove that what he had said was true without
Bhubesi noticing. On their way to meet the animals, Chakijane pretended to be injured;
he cried so that Bhubesi would carry him. They found a sjambok along their way. The
King reached for it, intending to wallop Chakijane when the truth was revealed.
Chakijane asked for the sjambok to chase flies away from the wound. When they get
closer to the animals, Chakijane asked Bhubesi to move faster because his wound
was painful. All animals were disappointed to see Chakijane riding on the back of
Libhubesi, holding a skambok, as if he was riding his own horse. Chakijane then
walloped Bhubesi heavily on the back and ran away.

Folktale 10: Indlala Yemagundvwane (Famine among the Rats)

The story is about Emagundvwane (the rats) who were hungry because of the famine
in the land. The Emagundvwane elders devised a plan to steal bread from the nearby
bakery. They all agreed and succeeded in bringing home some stolen bread for their
families. They decided to call an expert to help them share the bread so that they all
got an equal share. Logwaja (Hare) was called in to assist. Logwaja begun the huge
task of sharing the bread equally between them. He took one bread and put it on the
scale, when the scale went down on one side, Logwajwa took out a portion of the bread
and ate it. He did this on several occasions, trying to make equal portions of bread by
eating a potion. In the end, Logwaja’s stomach was full while the Emagundvwane
remained hungry because the portions were unequal. To add insult to injury, Logwaja

134
took the remaining bread and put it in the sack as remuneration for the day’s work. He
returned to the bushes and the Emagundvwane were left hungry after engaging in risky
and life-threatening attempts to get the bread.

Folktale 11: Indlovu nelibhubesi (The elephant and the lion)

The folktale is about Logwaja (Hare), a very clever little animal who wanted to prove
that he had more power than big animals, such as Bhubesi (Lion) and Ndlovu
(Elephant). Bhubesi was on one side of the mountain, while Ndlovu was on the
opposite side so the two animals were unable to see each other. Hare told Bhubesi
that he was so strong that he could pull Bhubesi as if he was nothing. He articulated
the same sentiment to Ndlovu. Hare then asked Bhubesi to hold the rope while he
went to the other side. He asked the same of Ndlovu. Both animals were instructed to
start pulling the rope whenever the whistle blew. They did as Hare instructed. The two
animals continued to pull the rope while Chakidze was on top of the mounting watching
them sweating like never before. They continued to struggle, as they did not want to
be embarrassed when Hare prevailed not knowing that they were pulling against each
other. Hare then blew the whistle to signal the end of the pulling game. He boasted to
both Bhubesi and Ndlovu that he was the stronger one. Both the two big animals were
under the impression that they had each been pulling against Hare, while the latter
was boasting that he was the king of the jungle.

Folktale 12: Logolantsetse netintsetse (The Grasshopper Catcher and

the Grasshoppers)

The folktale is about Logolantsetse (Grasshopper Catcher, a bird), the grasshoppers,

and their king, Ngcamngceshe (the king of the grasshoppers). There was an outcry by
the grasshoppers that Logolantsetse and his children were feasting on grasshoppers,
and that they were becoming fewer and fewer by the day. The grasshoppers decided
to summon Logolantsetse and make their concern known to him. They invited him to
a meeting, and he accepted the invitation as he was hungry. He had not been able to
catch grasshoppers for the past days. He told his children about the opportunity that
had presented itself. Logolantsetse devised a plan that involved asking the

135
grasshopper community to pray and acknowledge the Almighty before they started
with the meeting. His plan was that while the grasshoppers were praying Logolantsetse
and his children would eat as many grasshoppers as they wished. On the day of the
meeting, Ngcamngceshe, the grasshopper king, was interrupted at the start of the
meeting by Logolantsetse, who started praising the king and requested him to pray
before the meeting started. Logolantsetse insisted that no one must open their eyes
when the king was praying. Having heard the praises from Logolantsetse,
Ngcamngceshe wanted to impress and as such, made a long prayer. His long prayer
presented an opportunity for Logolantsetse and his children to eat thousands of
grasshoppers. When the king finished praying, only a few grasshoppers were left and
Logolantsetse and his children’s crops were so full that they were not able even to fly.

Folktale 13: Salukati lesaphekwa siphila (The old lady who was cooked alive)

This folktale is about an old lady who stayed with her grandchildren. Her grandchildren
would go to the fields while she stayed behind to prepare food for them. In their
absence, Chakijane (Mongoose) came and asked the old lady if they could play a
game called kuphekaphekana (cooking each other). The old lady had concerns about
the game, but agreed to play because she was lonely. They started playing and
Chakijane went in first, when it got too hot, the old lady pulled him out, and he did the
same with the old lady. They played the game several times until the hungry Chakijane
did not pull the old lady out of the pot. He shouted that the old lady was not yet done,
and that her soup is delicious. The old lady died as a result, and Chakijane ate the
meat, and later dished it up for her grandchildren. One of the grandchildren recognised
his grandmother’s fingers. When he confronted Chakijane, he ran away. They chased
after Chakijane but could not catch him.

Folktale 14: Imphi yeLusoti netinkhukhu (Enmity between the Chickens

and the Hawk)

The folktale is about Lusoti (Hawk) who had Tinkhukhu (the Chickens) as friends.
There was famine in the land. While Lusoti went to look for food, she instructed the
chickensto look after her eggs. The chickensseemed to be faithful and agreed to take

136
care of the eggs. Lusoti was gone for a long time and the chickensdecided to go and
look for her, forgetting that they had been assigned to look after the eggs. On their way
back they remembered Lusoti’s instructions. They ran back, praying that they find the
eggs there. Unfortunately, a house snake had eaten all the eggs. When Lusoti came
back, tinkhukhu were not at home, and the eggs were stolen as well. Lusoti asked
tinkhukhu about the eggs, and the latter were not able to account for the
disappearance of the eggs. Lusoti made a decision that from that day and for the rest
of her life she will feed with their chicks. To this day, Lusoti feeds on tinkhukhu’s young
ones.

Folktale 15: Lusoti netinkhukhu (The hawk and the chickens)

The folktale is about Lusoti (Hawk) who lived next to the home of the Tinkhukhu (the
chicken family), which was nearby hectares of land used as ploughing fields by the
people. The chickens were unable to get food from those fields. Only Lusoti could get
food because he had an axe. One day the chickens requested Chudze (Cock) to
borrow Lusoti’s axe so that they could use it to cut the mealie stems to get food. When
Chudze went to Lusoti, he discovered that Lusoti was planning to visit his relatives
who stayed far away. Lusoti gave the axe to Chudze, but pleaded with him to take care
of it, and not to lose it. Grateful, Chudze went back home. He gave the axe to the hens
as they requested. The hens and their chicks went to the field to cut the sorghum stem,
but unfortunately forgot the axe in the field because of excitement. When Lusoti came
back, he went to his neighbours to collect his axe, only to find that the axe had been
lost. Lusoti was angry and decided to feed on their chicks every day, as he did not
have an axe to cut the mealie stems anymore.

Folktale 16: Logwaja nematfundvuluka (The Hare and the Wild Plums)

The folktale is about animals living in a community with Lion as their king. The animals
had a garden with wild plums known as ematfundvuluka. They were allowed to eat
from the garden only when Lion gave permission for them to do so. All animals loved
ematfundvuluka. When they were all asleep, Logwaja (Hare) sneaked out and went to
the garden to eat ematfundvuluka. Seeing that the fruits seemed to be eaten every

137
day, all animals wondered who the culprit was. Logwaja devised a plan that suggested
that the animal who was covered in morning dew was the one stealing the fruit. That
night Logwaja went to the garden and ate the fruit, then smeared the dew on Lompunzi
(Bushbuck) who was fast asleep; he also put some leaves and pips on Lompunzi’s
buttock as proof that he was the one who ate the fruits. Lompunzi was caught with
dew, as well as leaves and pips on his buttocks, and was killed for something he had
not done. However, after Lompunzi’ s death, it seemed like someone was still stealing
the fruit. The king’s right-hand man went to the garden and saw Logwaja sneaking out,
he caught him, and called the other animals. However, Logwaja managed to escape.
The animals started chasing after him but could not catch him because he went inside
his hole. They tried digging up the hole, but to their surprise, Logwaja was seen running
for his life.

Folktale 17: Ngebulima beMphisi (The hyena’s stupidity)

The story is about two animals, Mphisi (Hyena) and Mphungutje (Jackal), who loved
each other dearly. Mphisi had a girlfriend, but his friend was not happy about it.
Mphungutje went to Mphisi’s girlfriend and told her that Mphisi was a fool, and was
wondering why such a beautiful girl could fall for such a fool. The girlfriend got angry
and told Mphisi about Mphungutje’s utterances. Mphisi also got angry and confronted
Mphungutje, who pretended to be ill. He suggested that Mphisi carry him on his back
to his girlfriend’s house so he could clear his name. Mphisi agreed and carried him on
his back. On the way, Mphungutje suggested that Mphisi tie him to his back with a
rope so that he would not fall off. When they approached the girlfriend’s house,
Mphungutje took his rope and severely beat Mphisi on his buttocks. Mphisi jumped like
a horse while the girlfriend was watching. The girl believed Mphungutje and deserted
Mphisi for Mphungutje, who was very happy that he had succeeded in taking the
beautiful girl from Mphisi.

Folktale 18: Logwaja netingwenya (Hare and the Crocodiles)

The story is about a Logwaja (Hare) who stayed on an island full of crocodiles. Logwaja
could not cross the river to see his relatives because he was afraid of crocodiles

138
(tingwenya). One hungry crocodile asked Logwaja to gather some of his relatives to
come and stay with them on the island. Logwaja could see Ngwenya wanted to catch
him while trying to cross the river. He acceded to the request, provided that Ngwenya
would gather other crocodiles for him to count. He (Logwaja) would then bring the
same number of hares to complement the crocodiles. Logwaja’s plan was to ask the
crocodiles to queue from where he was to the opposite river bank so that he could
count them while walking on their backs. He knew that this plan would enable him to
cross over to the inland. The crocodiles were disappointed because they did not get
what they wanted.

Folktale 19: Impungutje nemfene (jackal and the baboon)

The story is about Mpungutje (Jackal) who was trapped while trying to steal some
sheep from a farm. He saw Mfene (Baboon) passing by and stopped him. He asked
him to participate in a game, but at the end Mfene walked into the trap while Mpungutje
walked free. When the owner came, he wanted to kill Mfene but Mfene made it clear
that it was Mpungutje who ate the sheep. The owner released him. He started hunting
for Mpungutje, and when he found him, Mpungutje bribed him with a delicious fruit,
with the result that he went away without dealing with Mpungutje. He then went hunting
for Mpungutje again, and this time Mpungutje told him to hold on to a falling cliff. He
kept on holding onto the cliff until he was rescued by Bushbuck (Lompunzi), who told
him that the cliff was not falling. He went looking for Mpungutje again, and when he
found him, Mpungutje gave him honey to bribe him, and while he was enjoying the
honey Mpungutje brought some butter. They ate together then went their separate
ways. Mpungutje came back and ate all the butter. At the end Mpungutje devised a
plan and smeared butter on Mfene’s buttocks as proof that he was the one who ate
the butter. Poor Mfene was consumed by guilt because of something he did not do.

Folktale 20: Ingobiyane nengwenya (The Monkey and the Crocodile)

The folktale is about a Ngwenya (Crocodile) who had a sick mother. Doctors told
Ngwenya that his mother could only be cured if they got the heart of Ngobiyane
(Monkey). He politely asked the monkey to visit him under the water with the intention

139
of killing the monkey. Ngobiyane first refused to come but Ngwenya persuaded him
until he agreed. Because Ngobiyane could not swim, Ngwenya offered to carry him on
his back. When they were in the middle of their journey, Ngwenya revealed the real
reason for their visit, but Ngobiyane was clever and told Ngwenya that he left his heart
on top of the tree where he was staying. Ngobiyane asked Ngwenya to go back so that
he could fetch his heart. When Ngobiyane was on top of the tree, he laughed at
Ngwenya for believing that he left his heart on top of a tree. Thus, Ngobiyane managed
to escape, much to Ngwenya’s disappointment.

Folktale 21: Logwaja nendlovu (The Hare and the Elephant)

The folktale is about animals and their king, Ndlovu (Elephant). There was no food in
the land so the animals decided to till the land and plant some vegetables to curb their
hunger. Ndlovu also agreed to take part. All the animals went to the field every day to
do farming duties such as irrigation, hoeing and weeding. Ndlovu was always asleep
during the day and did not participate. When the vegetables were ripe, he would sneak
in and steal them during the night. The animals were annoyed and Logwaja (Hare)
decided to solve the problem by getting inside a big pumpkin with a knife under his
arm, with the assistance of Chakijane (Mongoose). When the elephant swallowed the
pumpkin, LogwajaGwaja used his knife to kill Ndlovu and escape.

Folktale 22: Sonkhofungane nagogo wakhe (Sonkhofungane and his

Grandmother)

The folktale is about a boy, Sonkhofungane, who lived with his grandmother because
his parents died while he was still young. Sonkhofungane dearly loved his grandmother
because she took good care of him. Famine overtook the land where they lived and
his grandmother died. Sonkhofungane put his grandmother’s corpse on his bicycle and
rode to a restaurant in town. In the restaurant, Sonkhofungane put the corpse in a
sitting position as if she was still alive and ordered a meal for two people. He then
accused the restaurant of being responsible for the death of his grandmother. He
shouted until the restaurant manager accepted the blame and compensated him with
a lot of money to make a living. He buried his grandmother and convinced others to

140
kill and sell their grandmothers. Some did what he suggested and went to jail, while he
enjoyed his money.

Folktale 23: Lobuhle (Lobuhle)

The folktale is about Lobuhle, a girl who refused to relocate with her parents to a place
across the river. Her parents agreed to let her stay behind on condition that she did
not open the door to anyone except her mother who would come and give her food
every morning and every evening. The ogre heard them talking and listened carefully
to the mother’s voice so that he could pretend that he was the mother. He tried several
times to get the girl to open the door. At first she refused, but eventually the ogre
convinced her that he was her mother and she opened the door and let him in. The
ogre was very happy and he tried to kill the girl but she was rescued by a neighbour.

Folktale 24: Tinyamatane ne Mphisi (The Animals and the Elephant)

The folktale is about a mixed group of animals that decided to go hunting because they
were starving. When they reached their homestead, they decided to cook all the meat
and put some aside for the future. However, naughty Mphungutje (Jackal) would sneak
out during the night, eat the meat and smear the fat on the buttocks of Mphisi (Hyena).
The animals noticed that after each night there was a huge deficit of meat in the pot; it
was clear that a large portion was missing. Every animal was summoned to a meeting.
Mphungutje talked a lot and made suggestions during the meeting and no one noticed
that he was the manipulator playing the victim. Mphungutje recommended that they all
bend down so that they may see each other’s bottoms. According to Mphungutje’s
plan, the one who ate the meat would have oil oozing on his buttocks. They found that
Mphisi had oil on this buttocks and the Mphungutje suggested that they kill him.

Folktale 25: Chakidze neMpunzi (The Mongoose and the Bushbuck)

The story is about Mpunzi (Bushbuck) who gave birth to three babies. She wanted a
wet-nurse to look after her children since it was summer time and she wanted to hoe
her fields. She hired Chakidze (Mongoose), who promised to take care of mother
Bushbuck’s children. Chakidze cooked one of the young buck each time mother

141
bushbuck was away. He cooked the meat and leave some for Bushbuck, who was not
aware that she was eating her own children. The truth was revealed when the last one
was cooked and there was no child for bushbuck to suckle.

Folktale 26: Emantfombatane lamatsatfu (The Three Girls)

The folktale is about three girls who went to swim in the river. Two of the girls walked
far ahead of the third girl, Lotive. When the two girls reached the river, they took off
their fringed skirts and hid them in the sand. When Lotive arrived she asked her friends
where they had put their clothes and they told her that they threw their clothes in the
running river. Lotive threw her fringed skirt in the river and joined the others swimming
in the river. After their swim, the two girls dug their skirts out of the sand and went
home. The unwise Lotive was left naked and could not go home. She followed the river
looking for her clothes while her manipulators went home and lied to Lotive’s parents
that she decided to go to her uncle’s home. Lotive suffered the consequences of her
gullibility for a long time, ending up asking rivers and pools about where her skirt was.
She ended up naked and suffering while her deceivers were comfortable in their
homes. She went through a lot of suffering which included licking of mucus from an
old lady’s eyes. It took her some years to return home.

Folktale 27: Logwaja nelibubesi (The Hare and the Lion)

The story is about Logwaja (Hare) who walked through the bushes and came across
Bhubesi (Lion) thatching the roof of his house. He greeted the lion and volunteered to
help him because he saw a boiling pot of meat and hoped he would be offered some.
They continued thatching the roof. When it was time to eat, Bhubesi ate a large chunk
of the delicious fat meat and gave LogwajaGwaja a small portion of lean meat. This
happened for several days until Logwaja decided to tie the lion’s tail inside the roof
while the lion was outside the roof. Logwaja took the whole pot and ran away as
revenge for being given small portions of lean meat after helping the lion thatch his
roof for several days. The Lion cried out but could do nothing because his tail was tied.
The lion cried until he died.

142
 Folktale 28: Sikhova naTsekwane (The Owl and the Lightning Bird)

The folktale is about Sikhova (Owl) who lived in the same bush as her friend Tsekwane
(Lightning Bird). Tsekwane made it a habit to look at herself in the water. When there
was a drought in his area, she went to faraway places to find water just to be able to
look at herself. While on his long journey her house fell into disrepair and she left her
chicks unattended in a nest that was attached to a broken branch. Tsekwane took a
long time to return. While she was away, a leopard fed on Tsekwane’s vulnerable
chicks. On her return, Tsekwane blamed everybody, especially her friend Sikhova, for
not taking care of her chicks. She fought with Sikhova until their friendship came to an
end. After that, Sikhova would hunt during the night and Tsekwane would go during
the day.

5.4 Data analysis

Neuman (1997:421) maintains that the qualitative researcher analyses data by

organising it into categories, based on the themes and concepts and/ or similar
features. Researchers develop new concepts, formulate conceptual definitions, and
examine the relationships among concepts. Eventually they link concepts, based on
their sequence as oppositional sets, or as sets of similar categories interwoven into
theoretical statements.

Therefore, the data collected from the selected Siswati folktales were analysed, based
on the different prevailing themes in the selected folktales. These themes address or
expose the manipulative behaviour displayed by characters in the folktales. The
researcher was able to tease out themes that highlight causal factors or outcomes of
manipulation from the data.

The following themes were taken from respective folktales:

1. Ignorance of victims of manipulation

2. Power and control over the powerless
3. Trickery of the strong and unwise
4. Opportunistic manipulators

143
 5. Institution and situation awareness
6. Persuasion of victims of manipulation
7. The use of flattery to manipulate the victim
8. Playing the victim
9. Deception of the unwise
10. Impatience as a causal factor of manipulation
11. Manipulative revenge of the helpless
12. Bravery as a defence mechanism
13. Weaknesses as the gateway to manipulation

5.4.1 Theme 1: Ignorance of victims of manipulation

This is the prevailing theme in many folktales, and is regarded as a causal factor of
manipulative behaviour.

5.4.1.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 12, most of the grasshoppers were caught out by Logolantsetse

(Grasshopper Catcher) because of the actions of their ignorant king, Ngcamngceshe
(King of the Grasshoppers) who agreed to invite Logolantsetse to a meeting.
Logolantsetse had been hungry for a long time and made good use of an opportunity
to be well-fed when the king invited him to a meeting. He took his four children along
so that they could also feed on the grasshoppers. Logolantsetse prepared his children
regarding the right time to strike. He also used the opportunity to catch as many
grasshoppers as he could. Like other manipulators, Logolantsetse mentioned that he
does not want to waste time.

When they reached the place of gathering, Logolantsetse praised and saluted the king
and humbly asked for permission to say something before the meeting started.
Ngcamngceshe knew that Logolantsetse was their greatest enemy, and that he was
always hunting them. Being accorded the manipulative praises, Ngcamngceshe gave
him permission to talk and further make suggestions. What is interesting is that

144
Logolantsetse did not even know the purpose of the meeting, what he knew was that
once given a chance, he was going to make things work to his advantage.

Ignorant Ngcamngceshe made a mistake by giving permission to Logolantsetse to

speak before the purpose of the meeting was revealed. Logolantsetse’ s speech ruined
all their plans, to his advantage. The king’s action provided Logolantsetse an
opportunity to manipulate the grasshoppers. Thus, Ngcamngceshe agreed to all
suggestions made by the manipulator, including the suggestion to close their eyes in
the presence of their enemy, forgetting that anything might happen while their eyes
were closed. After they had all closed their eyes, the manipulator did not pray, as is
usual in their culture, instead, he asked king Ngcamngceshe to pray so that he and his
children could push their agenda.

What transpired at the meeting with Logolantsetse showed that the king and his
subjects had not fully prepared themselves for the meeting. Ngcamngceshe and his
subjects’ unpreparedness made it easy for Logolantsetse to manipulate them. What
was more exciting for Logolantsetse and his four children was the thought of catching
so many grasshoppers with little effort.

The grasshoppers were sure that they had gathered to solve the problem, not knowing
that they were aggravating it and opening themselves up to the highest level of
manipulation. When they opened their eyes, Ngcamngceshe was shocked to see such
a small number of grasshoppers. On looking up, he realized that the crops of
Logolantsetse and his children were so full that they could not even fly. Ngcamngceshe
realised that he was in danger but unfortunately it was too late. The manipulator had
managed to use the opportunity to his advantage and had succeeded in catching as
many grasshoppers as he could.

In this folktale, ignorance is the causal factor of manipulation and the outcomes worked
to Logolantsetse’s, advantage; since he succeeded in manipulating Ngcamngceshe
and the grasshopper community as a whole. The grasshoppers expose their
vulnerabilities to Logolantsetse by inviting him to a meeting and by further
implementing his suggestions and taking heed of his instructions. Instead of

145
disempowering him, they allowed him to dictate terms to them. Thus, they failed to
launch an attack, and as such, Logolantsetse ended up pulling off his manipulative
plan. In this regard, the manipulative act succeeded through self-induced vulnerability.
Ignorance contributed to the manipulative acts while wise strategic manipulative plans
helped the manipulator to achieve his goals. The manipulation strategy worked and
had positive results for the manipulator.

In folktale 13 the old lady was manipulated by Chakijane (Mongoose) to satisfy his
hunger. The old lady’s ignorance made her vulnerable to Chakijane’ s manipulative
behaviour. The old lady agreed to all the suggestions imposed by Chakijane without
any speculations; she thought that Chakijane would entertain her and solve her
loneliness by playing the maphekaphekana game (game of cooking each other). Her
ignorance led her into the hands of the manipulator.

The similarities between the two folktales is that both folktales have hunger issues as
the main causal factor of manipulation. Both Logolantsetse and Chakijane were hungry
and manipulated their victims in order to get food. In both folktales, the victims were
ignorant and could not even think of the harm behind their manipulator’s suggestions.
They both agreed and their ignorance led both parties to fatal manipulation.

The manipulators of these two folktales were successful, since both the old lady died
and most of the grasshoppers died. Moreover, the manipulators’ mission was
accomplished at the expense of their victims.

5.4.1.2 Method of difference

In folktale 1, Dlangala (Eagle) finds himself being manipulated by Ncedze (Fantail)

during the elections. The bird community wanted to elect a king to rule over them. After
a long debate and campaigning, the birds made a ruling that the bird who could fly
very high and for a long time will be their king. The manipulator, Ncedze, came up with
a strategy to outsmart Dlangala by flying on the latter’s big wings so that when Dlangala
got tired, he (Ncedze) could then fly higher than he could. This strategy would ensure
that Ncedze would be crowned king of all birds.

146
As they were flying, Dlangala noticed that he was the only bird flying very high, and
that the other birds were either far below or had tired and landed. He shouted he was
the king of all birds, not knowing that his manipulator, Ncedze was also shouting that
he was the king of all the birds. According to Ncedze, his own independent flight started
when Dlangala got tired. He flew very high as he was still fresh and powerful because
he had been hiding in the wings of Dlangala. By the time Dlangala noticed this it was
already too late, Ncedze still had the energy to fly up above Dlangala in order to be
crowned king of all birds. Ncedze continued with his twisted plan and flew very high
but was disappointed when he landed, because he was disqualified and not crowned
as king of all birds. Ncedze, a small bird, managed to manipulate Dlangala the big bird.
This folktale also displays the ignorance of the big birds and other birds in the folktale,
therefore ignorance is the contributory factor of manipulation, but the outcomes are
different because Ncedze did not succeed and was disqualified.

In folktale 11 Logwaja (Hare) was consumed by the desire for power and succeeded
in manipulating the two big animals, Bhubesi (Lion) and Ndlovu (Elephant). Logwaja
wanted the big animals to admit that he was powerful and stronger than they were.
Both Bhubesi and Ndlovu knew that Logwaja was clever, but were not convinced that
he could manipulate them. Bhubesi and Ndlovu were tricked by Logwaja as they spent
the entire day pulling against each other without realizing it. Logwaja, the manipulator,
knew that when the news that he had overcome the two reached the public, the other
animals would respect him, and he would be regarded as more powerful than the other
two big animals.

Bhubesi and Ndlovu displayed signs of ignorance, as individuals, they took it for
granted that Logwaja was small, and that there was nothing he could do to them
because they were big animals. What transpired in their interaction was that when
Bhubesi saw Logwaja holding the rope, he could not associate it with manipulation and
teased Logwaja that he was going to hang himself.

At the same time, Bhubesi also took it for granted that under normal circumstances,
Logwaja had no hope of pulling them. Bhubesi further displayed signs of ignorance

147
after Logwaja had explained how to play the game, thinking that Logwaja was
ludicrous. The lion told the little hare that he should not take chances, as he was very
powerful and could grab him and throw him very far away as his mane rose ready to
fight.

Logwaja, the manipulator softly told the lion, that he does not have the power to fight,
but to play games. Indeed, Logwaja did not have the power to fight but had mind power
to play games and bluff the big animals. Bhubesi did not associate the games with
mind manipulation so Logwaja was able to convince Bhubesi to play the game.

Bhubesi and Ndlovu saw Logwaja’s challenge as very effortless, since they both
thought that together, they formed a formidable force, and that no one could defeat
them. They forgot that Logwaja was clever and could use his tricks to defeat them. As
a result of their ignorance, they pulled against each other, Bhubesi on the one side of
the mountain, and Ndlovu on the other side, while Logwaja was on the mountain top,
watching them struggling for the whole day. The big animals acted impulsively and
agreed to pull the rope against Logwaja without questioning the referee’s actions, or
asking who would be checking for irregularities. As the other participant would be on
the one side of the mountain, and vice versa, the two big animals took it for granted
that the game would be easy and over soon, as Logwaja was small. Bhubesi and
Ndlovu had misjudged the capability of Logwaja, based on his small stature, forgetting
about the power of the mind, hence Ndlovu questioned him about his powers and
mentioned that he is thin and powerless. In their conversation, Gwaja responded that
he only came to play the game and nothing else. Gwaja did not want to start a fight,
all he wanted was to push his agenda.

Both Bhubesi and Ndlovu did not even realise that they were being manipulated. They
did not even bother to ask why it was Logwaja who had to blow the whistle, or if one
could be the referee and a participant in the game at the same time. After Logwaja
blew the last whistle to end the game, he ran to both animals separately to confirm his
victory.

148
Logwaja’s aim was to fool Ndlovu and Bhubesi in order to gain recognition and be
regarded as more powerful than both the two big animals. The questionable act of
being the referee, organizer, and false participant in the game worked to Logwaja’s
advantage. The two animals pulled against one another; and none of them won.
Moreover, reputation was sullied. The manipulator wins because Bhubesi and Ndlovu
engaged in the game without thinking. Imperiousness is the enabling mechanism of
manipulation in this folktale. The two big animals acted impulsively and made things
easy for the manipulator, helping him to gain fame at their expense.

In this folktale, being power hungry serves as the cause of, or reason behind,
Logwaja’s manipulation of Bhubesi and Ndlovu. The outcomes are positive for
Logwaja, since he succeeded in manipulating the other animals to get the fame and
power that he always wanted. Logwaja misled Bhubesi and Ndlovu into believing that
he could pull them. At the end of the day, the news had spread that Logwaja has pulled
both Bhubesi and Ndlovu, and the other animals started to respect Logwaja instead of
the two big animals. After his successful manipulation, Logwaja enjoyed the fame that
had previously been enjoyed by the two big animals and was accorded the respect
that had previously been bestowed on them.

The manipulator succeeded in his plans because Logwaja attained the fame that he
had always wanted.

The causal factors of manipulation in this regard are power hunger and the ignorance
of the two animals, Bhubesi and Ndlovu, regarding Logwaja’s mental ability.

The outcomes gave advantage to Logwaja, as he succeeded in manipulating both

Bhubesi and Ndlovu and constrained them to pull one another for the whole day.

In both folktales, the manipulation tendency was driven by power hunger and promoted
by the ignorance of the victims. The small animals manipulated the big animals in order
to become famous and eventually rule over them. The difference is that in folktale 11,
there was a need for the birds to elect a leader and candidates were ordered to enter
a competition to take the title of being a king of the birds. All birds came to an

149
agreement before the competition started. Ncedze managed to manipulate Dlangala
but was unfortunate because his plan did not succeed. He was seen holding onto
Dlangala’ s wings and he was disqualified.

In folktale 13 the competition was organized by Logwaja alone. He was the organizer,
referee and competitor in the competition. Logwaja made sure that the competition
was hidden and the other two big animals were ignorant participants of the unknown
competition. They individually thought Logwaja was their competitor, whereas they
were competing against each other. This strategy worked for Logwaja because at the
end he managed to get the fame that he wanted.

5.4.2 Theme 2: Trickery of the strong and unwise

In Siswati folktales, trickery is one of the tools used by manipulators to manipulate their
victims. It is usually employed by small animals to manipulate big animals such as
lions, elephants, hippos, and the bigger cats.

5.4.2.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 9, Chakijane (Mongoose) aspired to be famous and to be respected more

than the king of all the animals. Chakijane invented a plan to degrade and embarrass
the king. He employed his tricks to get the fame that he had always longed for by
asserting that he was not afraid of the king because the king was his horse, that he
could ride on the king’s back anytime he wanted, and that the king took him everywhere
he wanted to go. The news reached Bhubesi (Lion) who went looking for Chakijane.
When the lion reproached him, Chakijane denied that he had made those claims. With
a well-planned manipulative strategy in mind, Chakijane humbly suggested that he be
given a chance to vindicate himself by asking all the animals that were spreading the
allegations, if he had in fact said that the king was his horse.

Still furious, Bhubesi agreed that he would go with Chakijane to get the truth from all
the animals who had gathered at a particular place. Bhubesi was unaware of the
manipulative intentions of the journey. On their way to where the animals had
gathered, Chakijane tricked Bhubesi by pretending to have stumbled on a rock and

150
hurt his little toe in the process. He pretended to be severely injured so that the lion
would agree to let him climb on his back.

Chakijane then coiled up, and cried for a long time. Bhubesi saw that Chakijane’s
accident was going to delay them; he was in a hurry to resolve the matter and punish
Chakijane accordingly. Bhubesi then decided to help the manipulator by allowing him
to ride on his back, not recognising that he was validating his claims by manipulative
strategy. Bhubesi acted impulsively, driven by his anger and eagerness to find the truth
about the rumours spread about him. Chakijane cleverly asked for the sjambok to
control the flies around the wound. Without hesitation, Bhubesi gave the sjambok to
Chakijane and Chakijane was overjoyed because his trick was working very well. He
poked fun at Bhubesi and beat him with the sjambok on his buttocks before running
away.

To Bhubesi’s surprise, all his permissiveness helped his manipulator to prove his point.
Chakijane demonstrated to the animals that the king was indeed his horse, since he
arrived riding on Bhubesi’s back and beating him with the sjambok. The king had failed
to discern that Chakijane was tricking him, until Chakijane climbed off his back and
shouted that his claim was true, i.e. that the king was indeed his horse!

In this folktale, trickery is employed by the manipulator as an instrument of

manipulation. Manipulation is played out because of jealousy. The outcome of
manipulation in this regard was positive as the manipulator succeeded in getting his
victim to do as he wished for the manipulator’s own benefit. In the end, the trick worked
to Chakijane’ s advantage, and he received the recognition and the fame that he had
always wanted.

In Folktale 17, Mphungutje (Jackal)manipulated Mphisi (Hyena) because he was

jealous of his beautiful girlfriend. He used trickery to make Mphisi look like the biggest
fool ever. He lied to the girlfriend saying that Mphisi is his horse. The girl was shocked
because she had always seen them together as friends. Mphungutje played his trickery
very well, especially when his friend asked him about the allegations. He used his
tricks and pretended to be very sick so that his friend would carry him on his back. He

151
asked for a robe to tie himself on his friend’s back instead of a whip that might have
alerted Mphisi that he was not ill but up to his tricks. The journey started to the
girlfriend’s home, both intending to prove a point but in a different way. Mphisi wanted
to prove that Mphungutje had lied to his girlfriend but the manipulator was going to
prove that Mphisi is indeed a fool and take his girlfriend. Mphungutje ordered Mphisi
to run because he might die before the truth was revealed. When they were
approaching the girlfriend’s home, he lashed Mphisi severely on his buttocks with the
“whip’. The girlfriend saw this and was astonished because Mphungutje came riding
on Mphisi as his horse. The point was proven and Mphungutje managed to take the
girl.

There are similarities in folktales 9 and 17, which both depict manipulative trickery
practised by small creatures against bigger creatures. The manipulators used the
same strategy to manipulate the victims. The manipulator lied to get the attention of
their victims as well as the others who heard about the lies. In folktale 9, Chakijane
lied to Bhubesi and in folktale 17, Mphungutje lied to Mphisi’s girlfriend.

Both folktales depict the manipulator denying the allegations and pretending to be sick.
In both folktales the victims were horses of the manipulator and because of their
gullibility they could not prove their innocence, and their manipulators managed to
prove the point against them. In both folktales, the manipulators were successful in
their plans, they proved the validity of their claims.

5.4.2.2 Method of difference

In folktale 16, Libhubesi Bhubesi (Lion) used his powers to restrict the animals from
eating the wild plums for a certain period. Logwaja (Hare) disobeyed the king’s
instructions not to eat the wild plums. Even the king himself had abstained from eating
the fruit. Logwaja cunningly studied the behaviour of all the animals, as well as that of
the king, and observed that the animals’ level of intelligence could not match his; he
therefore used this knowledge to manipulate them, without fear of being caught out.
Logwaja would sneak out during the night and eat the wild plums while the rest were
starving. Worse, he even singled out Lompunzi as the scapegoat. After eating the wild

152
plums, he put the green leaves and pips between Lompunzi’ s buttocks. This made
Logwaja look innocent and Lompunzi guilty of eating the wild plums. Logwaja acted
his part, even showing signs of annoyance towards Lompunzi. As manipulator,
Logwaja suggested ways to catch the thief while claiming he knew nothing about the
matter. He also indicated how he thought the culprit could be identified.

Logwaja went on to suggest that the animal who stole the wild plums had no regard
for the king, as he/she was disobeying his order not to eat the wild plums for a certain
period. What is more interesting is that Logwaja was known for having a sweet tongue,
yet all the animals failed to recognise that he was the culprit; instead they clapped
hands at his suggestion and agreed to everything he mentioned without any suspicion.
Hence, succeeded in playing his manipulative cards very well and Lompunzi and the
other animals were his victims. In this regard, disobedience, is the causal factor of
manipulation while trickery is the tool used to manipulate.

In folktale 21, all the animals were starving because there was famine in their land. A
meeting was called to deal with the crisis. One animal suggested that they till the land
and cultivate it so that they may eat the produce. All the animals agreed and they all
worked in the field, except their king, the elephant. The vegetables ripened and the
elephant started sneaking out at night to eat the vegetables that the other animals had
planted.

After several complaints and more meetings on how to catch the culprit, Logwaja got
inside a pumpkin with his knife. When the elephant came during the night, he found
that the big pumpkin was hard to chew so the elephant swallowed the pumpkin whole
with Longwaja inside it. After some days the elephant got sick and died. The animals
were victorious because the manipulator was killed.

Both folktale 16 and folktale 21 involve hunger issues and stealing food during the
night but there are salient differences in both folktales. In folktale 16, when all the
animals gathered to solve the problem of who was stealing fruit during the night while
in folktale 21, only Logwaja and Mpungutje were involved in solving the problem. In
folktale 16, all the animals trusted the manipulator and did not suspect any devious

153
behaviour. In folktale 21, the clever Logwaja and Mpungutje worked alone. The
difference is that in folktale 16, the manipulator was Logwaja who manipulated both
the king and other animals, while in folktale 21, the manipulator was the king himself.
In folktale 16, Logwaja acted as a victim and his suggestions led to the death of
innocent Bushbuck who did not steal the wild plums. Another difference is that
although Logwaja disobeyed the instructions, Lompunzi (Bushbuck) was punished for
a sin he did not commit. Logwaja manipulated all the animals, and the climax of this
manipulation is the death of innocent Lompunzi. In folktale 21, we see Gwaja finding
a solution to save the situation by tricking the culprit and killing him without the
involvement of the other animals.

In both folktales, Logwaja was very brave, but for different reasons.

5.4.3 Theme 3: Opportunistic manipulators

Being opportunistic, is one of the many tools employed by manipulators to satisfy their
manipulative behaviour to their advantage.

5.4.3.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 10, Logwaja (Hare) used an opportunity afforded him by the rats. The rats
invited Logwaja to weigh and share the stolen bread equally among them. Logwaja
studied the situation, realized that there was no trust among the rats, and saw a
loophole that he exploited to manipulate the rats.

Logwaja used the opportunity to satisfy his own needs because he was hungry. The
rats provided an opportunity to be manipulated by not trusting each other – instead
they chose to trust a stranger just because they had heard that he was an expert, and
that he had a scale. Logwaja had no ethics, he ate some of the bread while trying to
equalize it among the rats and took the rest of the bread and ran away. Logwaja, who
used the given time as quickly as possible, manipulated the rats. His hunger was
satiated at the expense of the hungry rats.

154
The outcome of this manipulative behaviour was positive since the rat community plays
right into the hands of the deceiver because of the level of mistrust among them.
Logwaja deceived them by pretending to weigh the loaves equally, while he was busy
feeding himself, then he took all the bread and ran into the bush. Thus, manipulative
acts were successfully carried out.

In Folktale 12, Logolantsetse grasped the opportunity by the grasshoppers to

manipulate them. The grasshoppers invited Logolantsetse to a meeting intending to
talk to him about their dissatisfaction regarding his eating so many in their community.
Logolantsetse’s four children also benefited from the opportunity. Like all manipulators,
Logolantsetse quickly set up his plan for his benefit. Logolantsetse’ s quick actions
allowed him and his four children to eat as many grasshoppers as they wanted.

Folktales 10 and 12 both involve hunger disputes and the manipulators were invited to
help solve the problem. Although the victims had positive intentions, the manipulators
used the invitations to manipulate them to the manipulators’ benefit. Both the
manipulators went home with full stomachs. Logolantsetse even taught his four
children to act as quickly as possible and use the opportunity to their advantage. In
folktale 10, Logwaja ate the bread and took some home, likewise in folktale 12,
Logolantsetse and his four children ate the grasshoppers and took some home.

The manipulative acts were carried out very cleverly and had positive outcomes.

5.4.3.2 Method of difference

In folktale 2 Mphungutje (Jackal) is an opportunist. He wanted to catch Chudze (Cock),

but was afraid of Kati (Cat). Kati was aware that Mphungutje may catch Chudze in his
absence so every time he went hunting, he gave strict instructions for Chudze not to
open the door to anyone while he was away, but due to disobedience and ignorance
Chudze disregarded the instruction. The opportunist, Mphungutje, used the absence
of the cat to his benefit; he visited Chudze and called him his friend. Mphungutje
pleaded with Chudze to open the door, but Chudze refused. Mpungutje did not give up

155
and Chudze ended up believing his cunning words and opened the door. Mphungutje
caught Chudze who was fortunately rescued by the cat.

Like all manipulators, Mphungutje did not give up; he kept on coming around at the
same time when the cat was not around. Mphungutje waited for a long time for Chudze
to open, and ended up catching him on several occasions, but fortunately, Kati rescued
him every time.

Kati continued to instruct Chudze not to open the door to anyone even after
Mphungutje had caught Chudze on several occasions, but the warnings were ignored.
Chudze was caught again because the manipulator was more cunning than before.
After catching him, he closed his mouth so that he could not cry out to Kati, who had
rescued him before.

It seems that Chudze did not learn from his mistakes. He had been a victim of the
same manipulator but still listened to him, rather than to his true friend. Mphungutje
displayed his manipulative planning skills, by being friendly to Chudze, but acted very
fast when opportunities prevailed. Mphungutje’s endless nagging and patience
compelled Chudze to open the door and Mphungutje (Jackal) was the victim yet again.

In this folktale, being opportunistic is the causative factor of manipulation. The

outcomes are positive because Chudze was caught by the manipulator, but fortunately
Kati rescue him. This is an example of repeated manipulation and repeated rescue.

In folktale 23, Chakijane (Mongoose) used the opportunity granted to him by Lompunzi
(Bushbuck) to look after Lompunzi’s three children. Chakijane hid the little buck far
from their home to a place known to him only. Lompunzi use to go out early in the
morning and come back late in the evening. Chakijane’s manipulative plan worked
very well because he was left alone during the day and his plan was to cook and eat
Lompunzi’s children. When it was time for Lompunzi to breastfeed her children,
Chakijane would bring one buck to her twice without Lompunzi noticing. After two days,
he would bring one child three times. When Lompunzi asked the manipulator why the
little buck was reluctant to eat, he explained that he gave them food during the day.

156
After he’d eaten the last one, Chakijane stood up and laughed at Lompunzi telling her
how foolish she was to allow him to eat her children without even noticing.

In both folktales, the manipulator was given ample chance to plan their manipulative
strategies. However, in folktale 2, Mpungutje used the opportunity to attack Chudze
when the cat was away, while in folktale 22, Chakijane used the opportunity, as an
employee, to manipulate his employer Bushbuck to eat her children. In folktale 2,
Mpungutje had to make sure that the cat was away before he acts, while in folktale 22,
Chakijane could do as he pleased. The fact that he boasted that he had fed Lompunzi’s
children during the day made him look like a faithful servant so that Lompunzi was
blindfolded until the last child was cooked. Manipulation was successful in both
folktales, but it was much easier to do in folktale 22 than in folktale 2.

5.4.4 Theme 4: Manipulative revenge against the helpless

Revenge is a cause and effect of manipulation.

5.4.4.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 14, the Lusoti (Hawk) had a good relationship with the chicken family – they
trusted each other in such a way that Hawk even went out in search of food far away,
leaving her chicks with the chicken family. The chickens agreed to look after Lusoti’s
eggs with the hope that they would also get food when Lusoti came back, since they
were also affected by the famine. Lusoti was gone for a long time. The chickens were
worried about Lusoti and forgot that they were assigned to take care of Hawk’s eggs
– instead, they went away in search of Lusoti but could not find her. In most folktales,
chicken characters always open themselves up to manipulators who capitalized on
their forgetfulness. Extremely hungry, the chickens went back home, moving very
slowly. When they get home, they found that all the eggs had been stolen.

The relationship between Lusoti and the chickens ended. Lusoti manipulated the
chickens and later took revenge against them for not taking care of her eggs while she
was away. The main culprit in this regard is the house snake, but unfortunately, the
chickens were punished, because they were responsible for taking care of the eggs.

157
Lusoti forgot about all the good things that the chicken family had done for her and
capitalized on their mistake. The snake took advantage of the chicken’s absence and
ate the eggs. The difference is that the chickens were manipulated instead of the
culprit, which is the snake, and the lion who fed on the chicks.

In folktale 28, Sikhova (Owl) and Tsekwane (Lightning Bird) were good friends who
lived together in their bush. Tsekwane was a vain bird who liked to look at her reflection
in water every day. She never cared about other things like taking care of her chicks
and cleaning her nest. Because of the drought in the land, she could not practise her
habit of looking at herself in the water. She went to a faraway place where there was
water, just to look at himself. She left her nest in the tree and asked no one to look
after it. She was away for a very long time. When she came back, she found that Wild
Leopard had eaten all her chicks. She fought with her neighbour Sikhova and blamed
her for all the damage.

The two folktales are about birds who were friends and who had trusted each other.
The similarities in the folktales are that the manipulators left both their homes/nests
and their offspring unprotected. In folktale 14, Lusoti (Hawk) left her eggs and in
folktale 28, Tsekwane left her chicks. Both manipulators in these folktales expected
their victims to take care of their offspring, that is why we find them punishing their
victims for the loss of their offspring. In both folktales, the punishment turns out to have
lifelong consequences. In folktale 28, Tsekwane (Lightning Bird) fought with Sikhova
(Owl) until they decided to part ways. This was an ongoing fight because wherever
they met, the fight would start until Sikhova decided to hunt at night for the rest of his
life and Tsekwane would walk freely during the day. In folktale 14, Lusoti (Hawk) fought
with the chickens and punished them by eating their chicks for the rest of her life. The
manipulative strategy was successful and the manipulators managed to manipulate
their victims for their own faults.

In both folktales, the manipulators managed to take revenge for the loss of their
offspring whereas they were also to be blamed for depending on others to take care
of their chicks and eggs, respectively.

158
 5.4.4.2 Method of difference

In folktale 5, Mphangele (Guinea Fowl) was vulnerable because of her inability to fly
high and was manipulated by human beings as a result. Mphangele was unable to
fight back, even though she was being manipulated. Mphangele was bullied and
manipulated by human beings who took her eggs by force, because she had no power
to fight. She kept on laying eggs in different places, but the manipulators followed her
and found them.

One day Mphangele met a snake who was very bruised. During their conversation, it
was revealed that the snake was beaten by the same human beings who were always
taking Mphangele ’s eggs. Mphangele and the snake were abused and manipulated
by the same manipulator.

The snake decided to take revenge against the people who bruised him, and those
who stole Mphangele ’s eggs. The snake then decided to stay beneath Mphangele ’s
nest and to bite everyone who tried to steal her eggs. Mphangele quickly agreed
because she was determined to see her eggs protected from the human beings. In
this instance, the snake took revenge on the human beings for stealing Mphangele ’s
eggs, and for the bruises he sustained.

The manipulators had succeeded in manipulating and exploiting poor Mphangele by

taking her eggs. Bullying was a strategy used by the manipulator to take her eggs. The
bully and manipulator took advantage of the powerless Mphangele. The difference is
that through the intervention of snake, Mphangele managed to stop her manipulators
from inflicting pain on her. The good news is that at a later stage the manipulator is
punished.

In folktale 27, Logwaja (Hare) took revenge on Bhubesi (Lion) who made him work and
gave him small bits of lean meat while he ate the fat meat. One day, Logwaja saw the
pot full of meat boiling in the fireplace and devised a plan to tie the lion’s tail inside the
roof so that he could not go down and eat all the meat in the pot. Logwaja’s plan was
successful and he managed to take revenge for all the days that he was given lean
meat while voluntarily helping the lion to thatch the roof.

159
Both folktales display manipulative revenge but the difference is that in folktale 5
Mphangele could not fight back but through the intervention of the snake, they
managed to take revenge on the human beings. In folktale 28, Logwaja also took
revenge. He used his intelligence to volunteer to help Bhubesi to thatch his hut’s roof,
then tied Libhubesi’s tail and took the whole pot of meat while the lion struggled to
untie himself and cried for help until he died.

5.4.5 Theme 5: Persuasion of manipulation victims

Persuasion is the act of influencing someone to do something or to change his or her

mind about something.

5.4.5.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 6 Inja (Dog) and Kati (Cat) lived together in a certain house as servants, but
it seemed as if they were not being treated equally, which resulted in jealousy and then
manipulation. Inja was jealous because Kati worked inside the house, while he worked
outside the house. Inja asked Kati to explain why he was given an easy job to work
inside the house while he was given difficult work to do outside the house.

Kati pretended to be a suffering victim inside the house and persuaded Inja that he
was better off working outside the house. Kati’s actions were motivated by fear that
the owner of the house might decide to swap their places and that he would not cope
with the unpleasant conditions outside. Thus, he manipulated Inja for his own comfort.

The outcome in this regard was positive for Kati, because Inja believed what Kati said
and continued working outside the house.

In folktale 24, Logwaja (Hare) persuaded Bhubesi (Lion) to believe that he was not
hungry but just greeting his king, Bhubesi . Logwaja knew that Libhubesi had food that
he would not share even if he told Libhubesi that he was hungry; so he planned to
manipulate him by helping to thatch the roof of Libhubesi’s hut. Logwaja was given all
the lean meat and bones while Libhubesi ate all good meat. Libhubesi was unaware
of Logwaja’s manipulation. Logwaja went down and eat all the meat while Libhubesi

160
was battling to untie himself and he was unsuccessful. Logwaja ate all the meat and
ran away.

The similarity in these two folktales is that both characters who initially feel victimised
or threatened use persuasion as a tool to manipulate their opponents, who then
become their victims. Both folktales are about people who live under the same roof. In
folktale 6, Kati persuades Nja to believe that working outside is pleasanter than
working inside the house. In folktale 24, Logwaja persuaded Bhubesi to believe that
he was not hungry but that he was just greeting the King Bhubesi until he believed him
and accepted him as his guest for several days as he volunteered to help Bhubesi to
thatch the roof.

In both folktales the manipulation strategies worked successfully; the manipulators

were able to get what they wanted without their victims noticing their strategies.

5.4.5.2 Method of difference

In folktale 20, Ngobiyane (Monkey) lived on top of a tree and Ngwenya (Crocodile)
lived next to the river. Ngwenya asked Ngobiyane to visit him under the water.
Ngobiyane made it clear that he could not go under the water because he could not
swim, and that he was afraid of Ngwenya’s big mouth.

Ngwenya kept on trying to persuade Ngobiyane, calling him “friend”, and he was
strategic in that he quickly offered to carry Ngobiyane on his back. One needs to bear
in mind that the deal was that Ngobiyane would first visit Ngwenya and thereafter,
Ngwenya would visit him. Although Ngobiyane was sceptical, he fell for his friend’s
cunning words and ended up agreeing to visit. Ngwenya’s hidden agenda was to get
Ngobiyane’s heart to cure his sick mother. When they were in the middle of the river
and Ngwenya was sure that it was impossible for Ngobiyane to turn back, Ngwenya
revealed the real reason for the visit, i.e. that he wanted his heart to cure his sick
mother.

Ngobiyane calmly and softly told Ngwenya that he should have told him from the start
so that he could have brought his heart with him. Ngobiyane did not show any sign of

161
anger or fright, but gave the impression that it was useless for Ngwenya to kill him
because he had left his heart on top of the tree where he was staying. The manipulator
was disappointed, but his hopes were raised when Ngobiyane suggested that they go
back together so that he may take his heart and give it to him. With confidence,
Ngwenya went back with high hopes that his plans were coming together. When they
got back, Ngobiyane climbed off and started laughing at Ngwenya for his stupidity,
asking if he had ever seen anyone walking without a heart. In this folktale, the
manipulator used his strategy very well, but it seems as if he did not assess his victim’s
situation, nor was he aware of his background or history. This becomes evident when
he believed Ngobiyane when he told him that monkeys do not walk around carrying
their hearts. As a result, his manipulation attempt was unsuccessful.

In folktale 2, Mphungutje (Jackal) persuaded Chudze (Cock) that he had come to pay
a friendly visit and that he would not be harmed. Even though Chudze remembered
that he was not supposed to open the door, he was persuaded until he opened the
door. Chudze could not stand his ground and do what Kati told him to do. He did not
learn from his mistakes. Chudze was caught several times but still believed that
Mphungutje was the friend.

In the two folktales, the manipulators used persuasion to catch their victims whom they
called friends. The difference is that in folktale 20, the causative factor of manipulation
is the sickness of the manipulator’s mother. Ngwenya had a good plan, but did not
succeed due to his lack of knowledge. In folktale 20, Ngobiyane was not told about the
danger of visiting a stranger. Nevertheless, Ngobiyane was afraid of the crocodile’s
big mouth until his fears were allayed. In folktale 2, Chudze was given an instruction
not to open the door, which means that he was given some warning about the dangers
of opening the door while Kati (Cat) was away. Another difference is that in folktale 20,
Ngobiyane was persuaded to visit his “friend” but when he became aware of the
manipulative act, he used his mind to get out of the situation by telling the crocodile
that he left his heart on top of the tree. He used information that was not known to the
manipulator. He knew that because crocodiles lived under water, chances were that
they knew little about animals living on land that is why he escaped from the

162
manipulative act. In folktale 2, Chudze could not help himself from being manipulated
repeatedly. Chudze was always rescued by his friend Kati, while in folktale 20,
Ngobiyane rescued himself. The manipulative strategy had negative outcomes
because the manipulator lost after working so had to persuade Ngobiyane to visit him.

The manipulative strategy worked in favour of the manipulators in both folktales but
the outcomes were negative, since both folktale victims were rescued.

5.4.6 Theme 6: Using flattery to catch the victim

Flattery involves giving excessive and insincere praises or compliments to further

one’s own interests.

5.4.6.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 5, human beings and other animals used flattery to take her eggs from
Mphangele (Guinea Fowl). They admired Mphangele ’s beautiful dotted black and
white feathers and praised her for having beautiful legs that could run well. They
flattered Mphangele in order to manipulate her and persevered in locating her hidden
eggs. They were aware that Mphangele could not defend herself from her enemies
and used this to their advantage. However, the manipulative practice after the
intervention of the snake who slept underneath guinea fowl’s nest and bit those who
attempted to take Mphangele’s eggs.

In folktale 12, Logolantsetse (Grasshopper Catcher) used flattery to manipulate King

Ngcamngceshe and the other grasshoppers. Logolantsetse flattered Ngcamngceshe
by telling him that he is a great, kind, wonderful and intelligent king, and asking him to
pray before the meeting. He also revealed that he was willing to be corrected if he was
found to be in the wrong. Logolantsetse acted innocent, while planning to kill and feed
on almost all the grasshoppers that day. In this folktale, the manipulator perpetuated
injustice and used religion as a tool to manipulate his victims. They were not used to
praying before meetings or during any of their gatherings. Logolantsetse acted as if he
is setting an example of good religious practice.

163
Logolantsetse imposed his culture onto the community of grasshoppers by telling them
that in their community they respect the Almighty, and do not start any meeting without
prayer. Logolantsetse suggested that everybody close their eyes, saying that any
grasshopper who will not close their eyes will be disrespecting the Almighty, and that
the wrath of the Almighty will be upon him or her and the grasshopper community at
large. The flattery swayed Ngcamngceshe who agreed to pray to prove a point. He
said a very long prayer to show how intelligent and wonderful her was, while
Logolantsetse and his four children used the opportunity to feast on the grasshoppers.
Logolantsetse succeeded in using flattery and religious injustice to manipulate the
grasshoppers. The outcome worked to his advantage, since his plan was to get more
grasshoppers to eat, while the others praying with their eyes closed.

Accordingly, the manipulator’s flattery can so appeal to their victims that they fall prey
to them if the victims are not careful. In both folktales, the manipulators used flattery
to manipulate. The manipulative outcomes are positive, since Logolantsetse and his
children managed to eat many locusts without having to hunt for them, and in folktale
5, the manipulators succeeded in preventing the eggs from being stolen.

5.4.6.2 Method of difference

In folktale 19 Mphungutje (Jackal) used flattery to manipulate Imfene (Baboon).

Mpungutje used words such as “my friend” so that Mfene would believe that
Mphungutje was his friend, and Mfene felt special and thought that he was the only
one worthy of playing the “beautiful” game with Mphungutje. Imfene agreed without
hesitation to play the game and was caught in the trap while his friend ran away and
left him in danger of being caught by the farmer. Fortunately, the farmer pardoned
Mfene and let him go. Each time Mfene met Mphungutje, he fell prey to Mphungutje ’s
further manipulations.

In folktale 8, Mphungutje (Jackal) was hungry and wanted to catch and eat Chudze
(Cock), who was on top of the tree. He called Chudze his beloved friend and told him
that he has brought exciting news. Mphungutje politely asked Chudze to come down
from the tree as he could relate the news better while he is on the ground. He used

164
flattery to convince Chudze to believe that there is no more enmity between animals,
and that all animals now live together in harmony.

The trick was exposed when Chudze told Mphungutje that from the top of the tree he
could see his relatives, the dogs, who were coming to visit him. Chudze emphasized
that it was possible that the visit was because of the latest announcement that all
animals now live in peace. Chudze was also lying; no relatives were coming but he
was validating the truthfulness of what Mphungutje was saying. In both folktales,
flattery was used as an instrument to manipulate the victims. The difference is that in
folktale 8, hunger was the causal factor of this kind of manipulation, while flattery was
the tool used to manipulate. The outcome was negative, because the manipulator did
not succeed in catching his victim. In folktale tale 19, trickery and deception are the
causal factors of manipulation and the manipulator succeeded in manipulating the poor
baboon by letting him fall into a trap for the manipulator’s sake. The manipulator did
not stop manipulating his victim; he repeatedly used the same strategy and the same
tool but the victim did not learn the lesson. In folktale 8, the victim was strong enough
to stand his ground in such a way that his manipulator went away and never came
back.

5.4.7 Theme 7: Playing the victim

In this case, the perpetrator acts as a victim of circumstances to manipulate the real
victim.

5.4.7.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 17, Mphungutje (Jackal) was jealous of his friend Mphisi (hyena), who had
a beautiful girlfriend. Mphungutje set a plan in motion to manipulate Mphisi and his
girlfriend in order to steal the girl. He told Mphisi’s girlfriend that he could prove that
Mphisi is a fool by riding on his back as if he was his horse. Mphungutje pretended to
be very sick and that he could not walk in order to appeal to Mphisi’s sympathies.
Indeed, Mphisi sympathized with Mphungutje and innocently carried him on his back,

165
not realizing that Mphungutje wanted to achieve his manipulative plan to prove that
Mphisi is a real fool.

Mphungutje acted the victim, knowing very well that he is not sick, but wanted to come
riding on Mphisi’s back to prove Mphisi’s foolishness. He pretended to be the one
whose innocence needs to be proven, whereas he wanted to prove to the girl and her
family that Mphisi is a fool. Mphisi did not even question Mphungutje’s sudden illness.
His carelessness and eagerness to catch the culprit opened himself up to being
manipulated, and this became the catalyst for the manipulator to accomplish his
mission easily. In this folktale, Mphungutje succeeded in using his imperiousness to
manipulate Mphisi.

Mphisi acted foolishly and followed every request and instruction given him by his
manipulator, Mphungutje. In this folktale, jealousy pushed Mphungutje to manipulate
his friend Mphisi. On the other hand, Mphisi’s stupidity helped the manipulator to
achieve his goal. The manipulator, who acted the victim, succeeded in exploiting
Mphisi’s to his benefit. The outcome reveal that the manipulator succeeded because
in the end, he managed to convince the girl and her family that Mphisi is a fool and
eventually won the hand of Mphisi’s beautiful girlfriend.

The same strategy was used in folktale 9, where Chakijane announced that Bhubesi
(Lion) was his horse. When confronted, he denied the allegations and started playing
the victim. He mentioned that the animals were lying about him and humbly asked the
king to go with him to the animals who spread the rumours about him so that they may
both satisfy themselves of the truth. He even swears that he was prepared to be
punished if it was found that the allegations were true. While they were on their way,
Chakijane cried that he had stumbled on a rock and hurt his toe. He pretended to be
very sick and unable to walk. He requested Bhubesi, the king, to carry him so that he
may be able to clear his name. Bhubesi carried Chakijane on his back and allowed
him to take a sjambok to flick flies off his “wound” and rope to tie himself onto Bhubesi’s
back. At the end of the day, everyone believed that Bhubesi was Chakijane’s horse.
Chakijane, who acted the victim, was the hero who came riding on Bhubesi’s back.

166
In both folktale 9 and folktale 17, ambition was the causal factor of manipulation. The
manipulators acted as victims in order to manipulate Mphisi and Bhubesi respectively.
In both folktales, the manipulator lied to trigger the victim to act impulsively and commit
mistakes that led them to fall prey of manipulative acts. In both folktales, the victims
were permissive to every suggestion made by their manipulators. They wanted to
prove that they were not horses but at the end, they proved that they were indeed their
manipulators’ horses since their manipulators came riding on their backs. The
manipulative strategy worked very well for the manipulators. They managed to use lies
as an instrument and acted as victims to push their manipulative agenda.

5.4.7.2 Method of difference

In folktale 16, Logwaja fooled all the animals, including the king, and ate from the
forbidden garden. The forbidden garden had wild plums, which were the king’s
favourite. Logwaja sneaked out at midnight when all the animals were asleep, ate the
plums from the forbidden garden, and blamed Lompunzi. After eating, he put green
leaves and pips between Lompunzi’s buttocks and covered Lompunzi’s body with dew
making him look like the culprit.

All the animals were wondering who the thief was. They thought that since they all
slept together, it might be someone they do not know. Logwaja, the manipulator said
he would devise a plan to catch the thief. He suggested that an animal who is found
wet with dew in the morning would be the culprit who sneaks out at night to eat the
wild plums. All the animals agreed to the manipulator’s suggestion. In the morning
Logwaja suggested that they check every animal to ascertain who the culprit was.
Logwaja suggested this because he knew that Lompunzi would be found guilty
because of what he had done. Lompunzi’s ignorance allowed him to be manipulated
by Logwaja.

Manipulators never go far from their victims or point of manipulation; Logwaja stood
there, watching his manipulative strategy succeed. Lompunzi stood next to the king
and to his amusement, the king exclaimed that Lompunzi had dew on his body. All the
other animals came running to see for themselves.

167
The manipulator did not even show compassion for his innocent victim, Lompunzi who
was killed. Instead, Logwaja was happy that his manipulation strategy had worked.
Logwaja succeeded in tricking all the animals to believe that Lompunzi was the one
who ate the wild plums. Lompunzi (bushbuck) acted foolishly by not defending himself
regarding the green leaves and pips found in his buttocks. He knew that he had been
faithful and did not eat any wild plums. Also, all the animals should have looked for the
real culprit, because the leaves and pips that are stuck in Lompunzi’s buttocks were
fresh, suggesting they had not been swallowed and digested. Their impulsiveness to
get the culprit led to the killing of innocent Lompunzi, while the real culprit (Logwaja),
who suggested ways of catching the culprit in order to push his manipulative agenda,
went free. The thoughtlessness displayed by the animals breaded Logwaja’s
manipulative behaviour. However, the stealing continued until the real culprit was
caught but he managed to run away and was not punished. Eventually, the
manipulators succeeded in their tricks.

In folktale 24, the starving animals decided to go on a hunt to find food to eat. When
they reached their homestead, they decided to cook all the meat and put some aside
for the next few days. Mphungutje (Jackal) was naughty and he would sneak out during
the night to eat the meat and then smeared the fat on Mphisi’s (Hyena’s) buttocks.
Each morning, the animals noticed that there was less meat in the pot. They called a
meeting to resolve the matter. Mphungutje talked a lot and suggested on how the
culprit could be caught. They did not see that he was the manipulator playing the victim.
He suggested that they all bend down to who had oil on his buttocks. Mphisi (Hyena)
was found to be the culprit and the Mphungutje suggested that they kill Mphisi. Instead
of being blamed, the manipulator was praised for finding the culprit.

In both folktale 25 and folktale 16, Logwaja and Mphungutje were culprits but played
the victim. The difference is that folktale 16 the animals did not use any effort to plant
the sour plum tree but the king was in control of the garden, while in folktale 25, they
all went out for hunting. The manipulative strategy affected all the animals. In folktale
16, the king was the one who restricted the wild plums and the other animals followed
the instructions, except Logwaja who disobeyed and stole from the forbidden tree. The

168
animals referred to the wild plums as the King’s plums that is why the manipulator is
said to be disrespecting the king. In folktale 25, all the animals agreed as a team to
spare the meat for the following days. In folktale 25, Mphungutje ate the meat and
smeared the fat on Mphisi’s buttocks, while in folktale 16, the scapegoat, Lompunzi,
had green leaves and pips on his buttocks. The manipulative strategies worked and
the outcomes were positive.

5.4.8 Theme 8: Power and control over the powerless

Power dynamics as a theme is one of the many causes of manipulation in Siswati

folktales. It manifests in some people being hungry for power or abusing it. Usually
those in power have control over the powerless.

5.4.8.1 Method of agreement

The abuse of power and authority is a strategy employed by manipulators to trick their
less-powerful victims.

In folktale 4, Bhubesi (Lion, the King) used his power and authority as king to
manipulate the two poor cows who came to render their apologies for not attending
the meeting due to their sick calves. Instead of rewarding them for their humbleness
and honesty, he took advantage of his superiority and picked a fight. Bhubesi verbally
manipulated the cows and further asked them if their calves were of greater priority
than he was. The two cows found it difficult to state if their calves were more important
than the king was. The fact that they stayed at home looking after their sick calves and
did not attend the meeting said it all but they were afraid to say this because they would
face the king’s wrath.

The cows were unable to answer the king’s question, and from there they were able
to tell that they were in serious trouble. The two cows left the king’s palace without a
clear directive from the king and went back into the forest. On their way back, they
heard heavy footsteps behind them. The king wanted to abuse his powers by fighting
and assaulting the apologetic cows. The one cow fought the king and prevailed, while
the other cow ran away. Power and control is the cause of manipulation in this folktale.

169
Bhubesi, as king, successfully manipulated the two cows, using his power and
authority.

In folktale 5, Mphangele (Guinea Fowl), was manipulated by animals and human

beings who were more powerful physically than she was. They pretended to ask for
her eggs, knowing very well that they would finally take them without her permission;
there was nothing poor Mphangele could do about this. Manipulation is played out
when the powerful wrongly exercise their powers over the powerless.

In this folktale, the manipulators followed Mphangele no matter what she did. What is
surprising is that there was a targeted time for manipulation. The time targeted in this
folktale was when the eggs were about to hatch, i.e. the manipulators repeatedly came
just when Mphangele hoped to see her chicks. In this case, Mphangele was aware of
her manipulators’ intentions; she tried to evade them but failed because they were
more powerful than she was and there was nothing she could do. The manipulators
stopped following Mphangele after the snake decided to intervene and help
Mphangele, because he had also suffered bruises from human beings.

The outcomes are influenced by the intervention of the snake who decided to guard
Mphangele’s eggs against them being stolen by the manipulators. The causal factor is
power and control, but the outcome was positive and under control.

In both folktales, the manipulators used their powers to manipulate their powerless
victims. In folktale 5, Mphangele was manipulated by human beings and in folktale 4,
the lion manipulated the two humble cows. In both folktales, the manipulators wanted
their victims to feel that they have power and authority over them. In folktale 4, the king
lion did not bother about the sick calves as well as the meekness of the two cows. In
folktale 5, the human beings did not bother to take the eggs when they were about to
hatch. They did not care about the pain Mphangele was suffering for the loss of her
eggs. In both folktales, force is used to manipulate. The humble character of both the
two cows and the defenceless Mphangelel made them vulnerable to their
manipulators. Manipulators in folktale 4 and 5 succeeded in their manipulative acts
even though they used different strategies.

170
 5.4.8.2 Method of difference

In folktale 1, Ncedze (Fantail) wanted to become king of all birds. His campaign to be
king was unsuccessful, but hunger for power motivated Ncedze to devise a plan to
become king anyway.

The birds decided to hold a flying competition, where it was agreed that the bird that
could fly very high for a long time would be crowned king. Ncedze agreed because he
had devised a plan to manipulate Dlangala (eagle), a big, strong bird that could fly very
high up. Ncedze wanted to preserve his energy for later by climbing on Dlangala’s
wings, so that Dlangala could carry him for many days, without getting tired.

Dlangala reported what Ncedze did and several of the birds confirmed that they had
seen Ncedze flying on Dlangala’s wings. To Ncedze’s surprise, he was disqualified at
the end of the competition.

The desire to have power and control is a causal factor that compels Ncedze to employ
manipulation to outsmart Dlangala. Ncedze was power hungry and wanted to be
crowned as king. Mostly, he wanted to have control over the big birds and eventually
be accorded the respect of all the birds. Even though Ncedze succeeded in
manipulating Dlangala, the outcome was different from what he anticipated.

In folktale 21, the animals were abused by Ndlovu (Elephant) who used his powers to
manipulate them. Instead of participating in the tilling and ploughing of the field, he let
the powerless animals do the work. When the vegetables were ready to eat, the lion
would steal the vegetables during the night. The clever Mphungutje (Jackal) and
Logwaja devised a plan to catch the culprit and they succeeded.

In both folktales, power is the driving force to manipulation. The difference is that in
folktale 1, there is ambition for power, i.e. Ncedze wanted to be crowned king of the
birds by manipulating the great bird, Dlangala, while in folktale 21, the Ndlovu was
already in power but he abused his power by eating from the garden while the animals
who worked were starving. In folktale 1, Ncedze used his mind to manipulate Dlangala
who was big and had the skill to fly very high but had less power in mind, unlike in

171
folktale 21 where the elephant used his physical strength and his authority to
manipulate the small animals, but his strategy did not work. In folktale 1, the
manipulative strategy worked but the outcome was not good because the other
animals noticed Ncedze’s mischievous acts and he was disqualified. In folktale 21, the
manipulative plan worked but ended in killing the manipulator after he swallowed
Logwaja, unaware that he was inside the pumpkin.

5.4.9 Theme 9: Deception of the unwise

5.4.9.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 18, Logwaja (Hare) was staying alone on the island of a certain river which
was surrounded by crocodiles. Gwaja used deception to cross the river to the mainland
to be with his family. One day hungry Ngwenya (Crocodile) saw Logwaja alone on the
island and drew nearer to chat with him. Ngwenya suggested that Logwaja visit his
family on the mainland. The crocodile’s aim was to catch Logwaja and eat him because
he was hungry. He did not know that Logwaja was not an easy target. Logwaja agreed,
but requested Ingwenya to bring a certain number of crocodiles so that he may bring
an equal number of rabbits back with him. Ngwenya fetch other crocodiles, all of them
unaware of Logwaja’s manipulative strategy; they thought that Logwaja would be
bringing back food for each of them.

Logwaja started counting the crocodiles, but in the middle of the process he
complained that he could not count them properly and suggested that they form a line
from where he was until they reach the other side of the river. The crocodiles queued
as requested not thinking that they could be deceived by the tiny all Logwaja. Still not
satisfied, Logwaja requested that he walk on top of the crocodiles so he would be
better able to count them. Logwaja started counting them one by one while walking on
top of them. Logwaja’s aim was to use the crocodiles as stepping-stones to cross the
river without any harm. When Logwaja reached the last one, he jumped off without
turning back. The crocodiles were furious to have been deceived by such a small
animal. The manipulator succeeded in deceiving the unwise crocodiles.

172
In folktale 8, the rat community plays right into the hands of the deceiver due to the
level of mistrust among them. Logwaja deceived them by pretending that he would
measure the loaves perfectly on his scale, while he was busy feeding himself. To add
to injury to the insult, at the end of the day Logwaja took all the bread and ran into the
bushes. Thus, the manipulative acts were successfully carried out.

The similarity in these folktales is that the manipulator used deception to manipulate
an entire community of victims. In folktale 18, Logwaja was aware that the crocodiles
wanted to eat him, which is why he deceived them. In folktale 8, the rat community
were deceived when by Logwaja pretended to be an expert in sharing out the bread,
whereas he was feeding himself. In both folktales, the victims trusted their
manipulators and carried out their instructions. At the end of the day, all the victims
remained with nothing. In both folktales, the manipulative strategy worked very well.

5.4.9.2 Method of difference

In folktale 19, the foolish Mfene was deceived by Mpungutje, and was trapped in the
process, while his friend went scot-free. Mfene was unaware of his friend’s deception
until he was caught, but he did not learn from his experience: when Mpungutje was
eating fruit from the tree-top and gave Mfene a delicious fruit, he again forgot about
Mpungutje’s manipulative acts. Mpungutje’ s actions were tricks to keep Mfene busy
as he himself escaped under various pretences. And so it went on, each time they
encountered each other: when Mfene found Mpungutje again, Mpungutje pretended
to be holding a falling cliff and asked Mfene to hold it while he went to look for poles to
support the cliff. Poor Mfene kept on holding the cliff until Lompunzi, who told him that
the cliff was not falling, rescued him. And so it went on: each time Mfene tried to bring
Mpungutje to book, the situation got worse. The manipulator succeeded in his
manipulative tricks because innocent but easily distracted Mfene would end up taking
the blame.

Deception is also seen in folktale 26, where three girls, Lokufa, Salayedvwa and Lotive,
went to swim in the river. The two girls Lokufa and Salayedvwa went ahead of Lotive.
They took off their fringe skirts and hid them in the sand. They did this out of jealousy

173
because Lotive was going to have a party the following day. When Lotive arrived, she
asked them where they had put their clothes because she could not see them. They
deceived her saying they threw them in the running river. Lotive ended up throwing her
fringed skirt in the river. When they had finished swimming, Lokufa and Salayedvwa
fetched their skirts from underneath the sand and went home. The unwise girl was left
naked and could not go home. In desperation, she followed the river to look for her
fringed skirt. Like many manipulators, the two girls went home and lied to Lotive’s
parents saying that she had decided to go to her uncle’s home. Lotive ended up naked
and suffering during her long search for her skirt, while her deceivers were comfortable
at home. It was only after many years and much suffering that she was able to return
home.

The two folktales display deception from characters who call each other “friend”. The
difference is that in folktale 26, the girl was deceived for no apparent reason but to see
her naked, miserable and not able to attend her party the following day, while in folktale
19, the deceiver manipulated for personal freedom, since he was caught in a trap. He
deceived his friend to put his foot on the trap while this action helped him to release
his foot and be free. In folktale 26, the girl was deceived once and it took a long time
to mend her life again. She suffered while the manipulators did not. She was
threatened by frogs, crocodiles, pools and rivers, but at the end, she managed to go
home. In folktale 19, the victim suffered multiple deceptions and never learned from
his mistakes. He was deceived by the same manipulator several times, and was often
tempted by tasty treats. The fact that he was so easily distracted gave the mandate to
his manipulator to continue using deception to manipulate him. In folktale 19, the victim
displayed foolishness in that the manipulator repeatedly made a fool of him, without
his realizing it. In spite of the fact that he suffered a lot as a result of his friend’s
manipulative acts, he was appeased by mere food.

In both folktales, the manipulative acts were carried out well and the outcomes were
positive.

174
5.4.10 Theme 10: Impatience and manipulative consequences

Being impatient may open one up to manipulation.

5.4.10.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 3, the chicken family opened themselves up to manipulation. They were

assigned a duty to stay with the eggs of Lohheyane (Hawk) while she went away to
look for food. They waited for Lohheyane to come back but she took forever. They
were impatient and they decided to go and look for her, which is not what they were
asked to do. The chicken family walked for a long distance in the direction she had
taken, came across Flicker Stock instead, and called out to him asking if he had
happened to see Lohheyane. In this folktale, the chicken family disobeyed
Lohhenyane’s instructions justifiably, as Lohheyane was away for a very long time and
the chicken family went in search for her.

If the chicken family could have waited patiently for Lohheyane to come back, they
would not have been punished, because the eggs would not have been stolen. Also,
there would have been no enmity between the chickens and Lohheyane. Because of
their impatience, the chicken family opened themselves up to manipulation. The
manipulator succeeded in using the chicken’s impatience to his advantage. As a result,
the chicken community was punished for life, based on the manipulative actions of
Lohheyane. Lohheyane started feasting on the chicks immediately after pronouncing
her punishment. In this case, the chicken’s disobedience contributed to the
manipulator’s acts.

Instead of showing the chickens mercy, Lohheyane holds them accountable for an
offence they did not commit. She did not take into account that the chickens were
willing to help her by taking care of her eggs while she was away. The eggs were
stolen while they went looking for her. Lohheyane is cruel because she extends her
punishment to future generations. She was aware that the chickens had no choice
because they had no power to defend themselves; therefore, she punished them by
eating their chickens for the rest of her life. She succeeded in bullying and manipulating
the chickens.

175
The same impatience is seen in folktale 14 when the chickens allowed themselves to
be manipulated by Lusoti (Hawk). Lusoti asked the chickens to look after her chicks
while she went to look for food. Similar to the previous folktale, the chickens agreed to
stay with the chicks. Lusoti took a long time to come back and the chickens became
impatient. They started to panic because the chicks were hungry and could die at any
time. They left the chicks and went looking for Lusoti. They asked every animal and
bird they met along the way whether they had seen Lusoti but all denied that they had.
After walking for a long time, they decided to go back. On their way back, they
remembered that they had left the chicks alone. They found that the chicks had been
killed by Mphisi (Hyena), who saw them going out.

In both folktales, hunger issues advance manipulative acts. Both Lohheyane and
Lusoti left their offspring with the chickens, who were forgetful. In both folktales, the
chickens agreed to stay with the chicks and the eggs without hesitation. In both
folktales the manipulators took long to comeback. Another similarity is that in both
folktales, the chickens did not adhere to their assignment of looking after their
manipulators’ offspring and remembered their responsibility when it was too late. In
both folktales the chickens returned to find that the eggs and the chicks were gone.
The punishment is the same in both folktales. Lohheyane and Lusoti gave them lifetime
punishment and made it clear that they would feed on the chicken’s chicks for the rest
of their lives. The manipulative strategies worked in favour of the manipulators, since
the outcomes in both folktales are positive.

5.4.10.2 Method of difference

Impatience is observed in Folktale 7, which is about Gundvwane (Rat) and Sihhanya

(Wild Cat) who were in a good relationship. Sihhanya was the housemaster while
Gundvwane was her trusted servant. There was famine in their land and Sihhanya
decided to go and look for food far away. She asked Gundvwane, the good servant, to
remain with her kittens. As a good servant, he agreed because he never knew that
something could happen in the absence of his master Sihhanya. Sihhanya did not
return for a long time; and her young ones were dying of hunger. Sihhanya was gone
for a long time and Gundvwane ended up neglecting her kittens, focusing on finding

176
food for himself as well as Sihhanya’s kittens who were then very weak because of
hunger. Gundvwane became impatient and the impatience in this regard had a
negative effect on him. While Gundvwane was away looking for food, an unknown
animal killed the kittens. When Gundvwane came back, he just saw bloodstains – there
were no kittens. Gundvwane decided to run to the nearby house where he was given
a place to stay. When Sihhanya arrived, Gundvwane was not there, and she also saw
the bloodstains; there was no doubt that her kittens had been killed. She looked for
and found him in the nearby house. That was where the manipulation started.
Sihhanya was given a job to look and catch the one who was stealing their pumpkins.
To Sihhanya, it was obvious that Gundvwane was the culprit and this granted Sihhanya
a chance to pay revenge for the loss of her kittens.

Sihhanya did not recall the good times she and Gundvwane had in the past and that
Gundvwane willingly agreed to take care of her hungry kittens while she was away.
The manipulative act was propelled by the Gundvwane’s impatience and the
manipulator succeeded in manipulating Gundvwane by chasing it each time he comes
across it. This was also a lifetime punishment.

In folktale 28, Tsekwane (Lightning Bird) displayed impatience by going far away in
search of water just to see his image reflected in the water. He failed to wait for the
drought to pass. His impatience had a negative impact on his friend Sikhova (Owl), as
well as on her chicks that he left unattended in her nest on a broken branch. When
Tsekwane was away, the Leopard ate all the chicks. Tsekwane’s actions led to enmity
between him and his friend Sikhova.

Both folktale 7 and folktale 28 depict the impatience of their main characters but there
is a difference in the causal factors. In folktale 7, the cat’s impatience was driven by
famine; he was impatient because the chicks were hungry and very weak. He decided
to go and look for food to give them since their mother went away for too long. In
folktale 28, Tsekwane’s impatience was because of her vanity. She could not wait for
the rainy season to come so that she could get enough water to practise his habit.
Tsekwane’s impatience led to the loss of her chicks, while in folktale 7, the cat’s

177
impatience led to the loss of Lohheyane’s chicks. Another difference is observed in the
manner Tsekwane left her chicks; she was so impatient that she could not even ask
someone to take care of her chicks while she was away. In folktale 28, Lohheyane left
her chicks in the hands of the cat who was willing to care for the chicks but his
impatience overcame him. The manipulative plan was successful as both manipulators
succeeded, but the difference is that Sikhova was manipulated for sins he did not
commit; he was not the one who ate Tsekwane’s chicks, however, his carelessness
allowed the leopard to get the chicks.

5.4.11 Theme 11: Astuteness and situation awareness

Astuteness is the ability to study or assess situations or people to one’s advantage.

5.4.11.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 2, Mphungutje (Jackal) carefully assessed the prevailing situation between

Kati (Cat) and Chudze (Cock). On several occasions, Mphungutje had heard them
warning each other about the danger of opening the door to a stranger. Mphungutje
reckoned that the best time to launch an attack would be when Kati was away.

Mphungutje might even have assessed Chudze’s level of intelligence and observed
that in Kati’s absence, it would be easy to convince Chudze to open the door so that
she could catch him, to feed herself and her children. Mphungutje used insincere
praises, telling Chudze that she is his best friend, swearing every time that she would
not catch or harm him again. Mphungutje told Chudze that she had repented of her old
ways and that she wanted their friendship to continue.

Mphungutje persistently asked Chudze to open the door for her and her persuasion
ultimately paid off and she caught Chudze. It is a characteristic of manipulation that
victims are not aware that they are being manipulated; the manipulator’s kind, sweet
words often draw their victims close to them without the victims realizing it. Chudze’s
disobedience made him the victim of manipulation by Mphungutje. Disobedience is the
causal factor in the manipulation of Chudze by Mphungutje. The manipulator

178
succeeded in her tricks because Chudze disobeyed Kati’s instructions. In this folktale,
enticing words were used to manipulate Chudze.

In folktale 24, a girl called Lobuhle (Beauty) refused to relocate with her parents to the
other side of the river. Lizimu (Ogre) studied the situation and saw Lobuhle’s mother
bringing food to her every morning and evening. He listened to how Lobuhle’s mother
commanded her not to open the door to anyone except her mother, studied how
Lobuhle’s mother called to Lobuhle to open the door for her when she arrived with the
food, and learned how to imitate the mother’s voice. Lizimu pretended to be Lobuhle’s
mother and asked her to open the door so that he may give her food. In actual fact
Lizimu was not going to give her food but to catch her for a meal. Like all manipulators,
Lizimu was persistent in asking the girl to open the door for him and in the end he was
successful. Lizimu quickly caught the girl, but she was fortunately rescued by her
neighbour.

The siilarity in these folktales is that both Chudze and Lobuhle were commanded not
to open the door for anyone, but they failed to keep the commandment. In both
folktales, the manipulator was persistent in asking their victim to open the door until
the victim relented. Both victims were caught and then rescued by others. The
manipulative strategies were carried out very well but the outcomes were negative.

5.4.11.2 Method of difference

Manipulators take time to study their victims and then use this knowledge to their own
benefit. In folktale 13, Chakijane (Mongoose) assessed the situation and realized that
the old lady was alone and helpless. He made sure that she was indeed alone,
convinced her that being alone was not good for her, and then asked her to join him in
playing the game. Chakijane enticed the old lady, who saw the need to be entertained
by Chakijane since she was lonely and bored with nothing to do. The manipulator
succeeded in tricking his victim by merely studying the situation and applying his
manipulative trick. The old lady had no one to talk to, because all her grandchildren
were away in the fields. The old lady was happy to see Chakijane, unaware of his true
motive, to cook and eat her.

179
The old lady did not even question the safety of the game that Chakijane suggested,
but agreed to play maphekaphekana (cooking one another) with hungry Chakijane.
Chakijane explained that he would put the old lady in the pot first and tightly close the
lid. When it got too hot, she should scream and he would open the pot for her to come
out. Then it would be his turn and the game would continue in a similar manner.

They played the game several times, and the old lady ended up trusting the
manipulator, believing that it was a mere game to entertain her since she was lonely.
Meanwhile, Chakijane was pushing his agenda to cook the old lady. The game ended
when Chakijane refused to take the old lady out of the pot and mentioned that his gravy
was nice. Because of her ignorance and possible senility, the old lady did not realize
that when the pot was on the fire, she risked being burnt if she got into it.

What is surprising is that when the manipulator explained the rules of the game, he
had not said anything about the old lady’s gravy being delicious. This might have
thwarted his plan. The old lady continued shouting until she died. Chakijane’ s plan
succeeded and he managed to sate his hunger. Manipulative behaviour is observed
for the second time when the grandchildren came back from the fields. The
manipulator employed the same plan he used on the old lady. He wore the old lady’s
clothes in order to manipulate the grandchildren. They slept with Chakijane, not being
aware that he was not their grandmother. In this regard, Chakijane succeeded in
manipulating both the old lady and her grandchildren. In this folktale, ignorance
becomes the causative factor of manipulation while Chakijane’s astuteness was used
as a tool to manipulate the victims.

The old lady’s grandchildren rendered their elderly grandmother vulnerable to

Chakijane’s tricks by leaving her alone. She was manipulated by Chakijane, who
cooked and ate her to satisfy his hunger. The successful outcome for the manipulator
was due to his ability to assess and exploit the victim’s loneliness and ignorance to his
advantage. The difference is that the old lady’s grandchildren are manipulated as well.

In folktale 23, Sonkhofungwane studied the situation at the restaurant and saw that it
could be used to his advantage when accusing them for the death of his grandmother.

180
When Sonkhofungwane’s grandmother died, he decided to take her remains to the
busy restaurant and put the body in a chair as if she was alive. He ordered meals for
two. He suddenly cried out very loudly that the meal had killed his grandmother. The
people in the restaurant were shocked and asked Sonkhofungane to keep quiet
because he was crying so loudly that people in the neighbouring shops could hear
him. The restaurant manager decided to compensate him with a lot of money to bury
his grandmother and to make a living. Both folktales involve old ladies who were used
to get food, but the difference is that in folktale 24, the old lady died a natural death. In
folktale 13, the old lady was cooked until she died and her grandchildren were
manipulated as well.

In folktale13, the manipulators used the ignorance of the victims as a tool to

manipulate, while in folktale 24, the manipulator used the situation to manipulate the
restaurant manager. The people in the restaurant and the manager did not notice that
Sonkhofungane had arrived with a corpse. In folktale 13, Chakijane manipulated the
old lady as well as her grandchildren until one brave grandchild noticed the
grandmother’s finger and shouted out, exposing the manipulator, who then ran away.
The manipulative strategy worked in favour of the manipulators, since in both folktales,
they got what they wanted, and evaded punishment for their deceptions and
exploitation.

5.4.12 Theme 12: Bravery as a defense mechanism

Bravery is one of the strategies that can be used to counteract manipulative behaviour.
The following folktales reveal bravery as a defence mechanism against the
manipulative counterpart. Bravery is seen in many folktales that were discussed in the
previous themes, thus they are not discussed in detail to avoid repetition.

5.4.12.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 4, the timid cow ran away when chased by the king, Bhubesi (Lion), and hid
in the nearby village. The brave cow ran for a while, but when she remembered that
her legs were powerful, she stopped and fought the king, kicking him very hard. The

181
king was flung into the air and landed far away. He stood up furiously and returned to
fight. The vicious cow kicked Bhubesi again with extra force and he was flung even
further until he landed on a tree, concussed and hurt. When he came to, he ran for his
life. By winning the fight, the brave cow counteracted Bhubesi’s manipulative act. As
a result, the brave cow lived at ease in the bush.

In folktale 12, the grasshoppers closed their eyes during their king’s long prayer but
one curious, brave grasshopper opened his eyes to see that the manipulator was busy
eating the grasshoppers with closed their eyes. The grasshopper flew away as quickly
as he could; when the others heard the sound of opening wings they also opened their
eyes and followed suit. Unfortunately, there were only a few grasshoppers left. The
cowardly king ran away and was nowhere to be found. Because the grasshoppers’
eyes were closed, they could not see the enemy so it was easy for the manipulator to
catch them. Although all the grasshoppers were manipulated and great damage
incurred, the brave grasshopper saved himself and the few remaining grasshoppers.
In both folktales, some of the victims were overcame their manipulators.

In both folktales, although in different ways, the exercise of the kings’ authority served
to help manipulate the victims. In both folktales, the victims obeyed the instructions
given by their kings. In folktale 4, the cows were unable to answer the king and decided
to run away, while in folktale 12, the grasshoppers listened to their king Ngcamngceshe
and obeyed his instructions including closing their eyes in the presence of their enemy.
In folktale 12, one grasshopper was brave and exposed the enemy, while in folktale 4,
one cow was brave and decided to fight the enemy.

In both folktales, the manipulative strategies worked, but bravery changed the
outcomes to failure for the perpetrators.

5.4.12.2 Method of difference

In folktale 2, Chudze (Cock) bravely disregarded the manipulator’s instructions and

displayed analytical skills when he put the claims of Mphungutje (Jackal) to the test by
telling him that the dogs were coming to visit. The manipulator ran away, as he was

182
afraid of dogs. This showed that Chudze had been lying when he said that all animals
were now relatives and would live in harmony. The manipulator tried to manipulate
Chudze, but the outcome was not favourable because Chudze refused to come down
from the tree, and in fact in turn manipulated Mphungutje with another deception.

Likewise, in folktale 13, the old lady’s grandchildren were eating the meat, not knowing
that they were eating their grandmother’s remains. As they were eating, one brave boy
noticed something strange in his food and asked the others why what they were eating
looked like a human hand. Mphungutje started laughing, and quickly opened the door
and ran away blowing his whistle and singing that they had eaten their grandmother.
The boy displayed some bravery and as a result of his awareness, the manipulator
was revealed.

The difference in these folktale is that the manipulators were exposed in different ways.
Both folktales reveal the bravery of the victims but the difference is that in folktale 2,
Chudze was brave from the start and did not believe everything that Mpungutje said:
he applied his mind to test the truthfulness of the story. In folktale 13, the old lady’s
grandchildren believed that they were eating meat until one brave child revealed that
what he was eating was his grandmother’s finger.

The manipulative strategy was unsuccessful in folktale 2, because Mpungutje gave up

after seeing that Chudze could see the truth behind the lies. In folktale 4, the
manipulator initially succeeded, but ran away after he was discovered.

5.4.13 Theme 13: Weaknesses as the gateway to manipulation

This kind of strategy is often used in Siswati folktales; physical weakness or mental
defects are used to fulfil manipulative acts.

5.4.13.1 Method of agreement

In folktale 15, Lusoti (Hawk) pretended to be on good terms with the chicken family,
who failed to see his true colours. A farmer planted sorghum near their home but the
chickens could not fly high enough to get to the sorghum. Because Lusoti had an axe,

183
he could cut the sorghum stems and get enough sorghum for himself and his family.
The chickens sent Chudze (Cock) to go and borrow the axe so that they could also cut
sorghum. Lusoti lent the axe but stressed that it must be returned. He knew that
chickens are forgetful and he used this knowledge as an excuse to eat chicken meat
instead of sorghum.

The hens cut a lot of sorghum and ate with their children, but in their excitement, they
left the axe that they had borrowed from Lusoti in the field. When Lusoti went to the
chickens to fetch his axe so he could cut timber to fix the roof of his house, the chickens
gave him the sorghum. However, Lusoti did not accept the sorghum, indicating that he
had already eaten. When it became clear to him that they had lost his axe, he used
the opportunity to manipulate the chickens by asking them how they thought he would
survive without his axe, and he told them that he would have to survive by eating their
chicks. Still talking, he grabbed one of their chicks and ate it quickly.

The fact that Lusoti refused to accept the sorghum and pretended that his stomach
was full was a sign that he did not want sorghum, but meat. The truth was revealed
when he realised that the axe had been lost. He then pronounced that he would feed
on their chicks and immediately started doing so. This indicates that Lusoti gave them
his axe knowing their weakness, i.e. that they would forget the axe in the field. He
would then be entitled to punish them by eating their chicks. In this folktale, Lusoti
succeeds in manipulating the chickens by capitalising on their weakness and giving
them a lifelong punishment that involved eating their chicks.

In folktale 19, Mphungutje (Jackal) took advantage of the forgetfulness of Mfene

(Baboon) to manipulate him. Mphungutje used to steel sheep from a nearby farmer,
who decided to set a trap for him. While Mphungutje was caught in the trap, he saw
Mfene and cunningly invited him to play a game in which Mfene had to put his foot
inside the trap while jackal pulled his foot out. When the farmer came and found Mfene
in the trap he threatened to kill him, but after Mfene’s long explanation of who the real
culprit was, the farmer believed Mfene and set him free.

184
Angry, Mfene goes to look for Mphungutje, only to be manipulated once again and
forget about his intentions to bring Mphungutje to book. The cycle of finding the
perpetrator only to be deceived and tempted, resulting in his forgetting his mission, is
repeated three more times in different settings. The fifth time Mfene was manipulated,
he was given butter only to be accused later by Mphungutje for stealing butter. The
folktale shows that Mfene did not heed his friend’s repeated manipulative strategies.
He was easily distracted into forgetting about his humiliation and allowed his friend to
tempt and distract him repeatedly with delicious food.

In both folktales, the victims’ forgetfulness was used as a tool for manipulation. The
similarities are that in both folktales the manipulators identified and used the weakness
of their victims to manipulate them. Both victims were supposedly friends of their
manipulators. In folktale 19, the manipulator succeeded in his plans because he could
use Mfene’s weakness to repeatedly manipulate him. The same is displayed in folktale
15, where Lusoti also use the chickens’ forgetfulness to manipulate them. The cause
of manipulation was self-interest leading to trickery and deception, while the weakness
of both victims was their forgetfulness that made them fall victims of manipulation

5.4.13.2 Method of difference

In Folktale 4, the two cows felt inferior to King Bhubesi (Lion). They humbled
themselves before the King, explaining their behaviour, apologizing, and affirming their
loyalty. Instead of showing mercy, the arrogant King was cruel and bullied the two
humble cows. He wanted to punish them in spite of their meekness and honesty. Their
feelings of inferiority exposed them to Libhubesi’s manipulative behaviour. There might
have been other animals, who did not attend the meeting, but who took it for granted
that as the king had not summoned them, it was all right for them to stay at home to
avoid the wrath of the king. Characters modelled by the two cows usually fall prey to
their manipulators. Bullies often take advantage of people who are apologetic, and
manipulate them to their own advantage. In this folktale, the manipulator bullied the
two cows, taking advantage of their meek attitude. In this case, however, although the
manipulator (the king) chased the cows, intending to harm them, one brave cow turned
to face the king, fought him, and prevailed against him.

185
 The cows’ inferiority complex advanced the manipulative behaviour, while bullying was
the instrument used to manipulate the two cows. The difference is that even though
she was bullied, the brave cow ended up fighting Bhubesi and winning.

In folktale 20, the crocodile took advantage of Ngobiyane by asking him to visit him
under the water, since he knew Ngobiyane could not swim. The crocodile aimed to kill
Ngobiyane and use his heart to heal his mother. He told the Ngobiyane the purpose of
the visit when they were in the middle of the river, knowing that Ngobiyane would not
jump from his back into the water. However, his manipulative plan did not work
because Ngobiyane quickly thought of a better plan. He humbly requested that they
go back to fetch his heart that was left on top of the tree.

In both folktale 4 and folktale 20, the perpetrators used the weaknesses of their victims
to manipulate them. The difference is that in folktale 4, Bhubesi (Lion) used the
meekness and apologetic character of the two cows as a gateway to manipulate while
in folktale 20, Ngwenya (Crocodile) used the lack of skills to manipulate Monkey
(Ngobiyane). Another difference is that when the two cows decided to run away, Lion
followed them. In the middle of the bush the brave cow fought and conquered the king.
In folktale 20, Ngobiyane did not use his physical powers to conquer his manipulator,
instead he used his mental powers to fight and defeat the manipulator with a
corresponding form of manipulation. Another difference is that the humble cow’s brave
choice and recognition of her strength made her confident to overcome the
manipulator, while in folktale 20, Ngobiyane pretended to humble himself to realise his
own scheme to be taken back to his tree.

In both cases, the manipulation plan did not work for the perpetrators, since they did
not get what they wanted.

5.5 Conclusion

The researcher presented the data by giving a summary of the folktales that were
selected from various Siswati books with the purpose of finding answers to the
research questions. The data were categorised into themes and further analysed,

186
using the analytic comparison method, whereby the method of agreement and the
method of difference were employed. Different folktales were analysed looking into the
way manipulative acts are rendered by different characters of folktales. The findings
from the analysis will be presented in the following chapters.

187
 CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH FINDINGS

6.1 Introduction

The previous chapter presented and analysed 28 Siswati folktales. As stated in the
research design, the folktales were selected because they depict the characters’
manipulative behaviour. Data analysis was carried out using Neuman’s (2000) method
called analytic comparison, which employs the method of agreement and the method
of difference. This chapter presents the research findings of the study. The causal
factors are discussed in the form of related themes. Mogashoa (2014:109) defines a
theme as a cluster of linked categories conveying similar meaning that usually
emerges through the inductive analytic process that characterizes the qualitative
paradigms. Graziano and Raulin (2004:44) argue that data should be analysed and
interpreted so that it answers the research question and displays how these answers
contribute to the existing knowledge. Therefore, the research findings are presented
with the aim of providing answers to the research questions. The themes discussed
below were extracted from the data analysis in the previous chapter.

6.2 Common causes of manipulation in folktales

The following common causes of manipulation used by manipulators to catch their

victims will be discussed thematically, as stated above. As the principles will be
discussed here rather than the details of each tale, the reader is invited to refer when
necessary to the complete versions of each tale in the Appendix.

6.2.1 Power abuse and power hunger

Power and authority are two causes of manipulation in Siswati folktales. According to
Van Dijk (2006:360), manipulation is not only about power but is also specifically the
abuse of power that is deemed domination. In folktale 4, Bhubesi (Lion) was powerful
as king of the animals; he abused his powers and manipulated the two cows who
travelled a long distance to apologize for not attending a meeting because their calves

188
had been sick. The king used his power and authority as a tool to force the two cows
to act against their will but in his favour.

This kind of manipulation currently relates very well with contemporary leaders of
different social institutions, who use power and authority as tools to manipulate their
subordinates and ensure that they do things against their will. Jordan (2018:12) in City
Press 6 November 2018 reported on leaders accused of abusing their powers. In the
article he highlighted how President Jacob Zuma was treated differently. This is
observed mostly in situations where the manipulator in authority assigns hard work to
the victims, while he or she enjoys the benefits accrued by the efforts of the hard
workers. At times, the manipulators in authority set unattainable requirements and
expect those under their authority to achieve the goal. When victims fail to achieve,
they fall victim to their manipulator. In this kind of manipulation, victims have to be
compliant while being manipulated at the expense of their own interests.
Contemporary citizens can control manipulative tendencies of a perpetrator if they
become aware that they do have the strength to lead to the manipulator’s downfall.
Citizens should stand and fight manipulative behaviour.

Being power hungry is another side of the manipulation coin. The study reflected that
being power hungry is also a causal factor for manipulation. According to Business
News Daily (2019:12):

Power hungry leaders who abuse their powers in the workplace cause
pain to their innocent followers. The study reflected that being power
hungry is also a causal factor for manipulation.

In folktale 1, the analysis depicts Ncedze (Fantail) as a small but ambitious bird that
wished to rule as king of the birds. Ncedze devised a plan to manipulate Dlangala by
clinging to his wings during the flight. When Dlangala became tired, he started flying
on his own so that the birds would think he was the strongest, highest flyer. He wanted
to gain power and control, and to be held in high regard by other birds. However, he
was exposed and disqualified.

189
This is in line with the manipulation recently observed during Local and National
Government elections where many people from different organizations campaign for
positons, while pushing hidden agendas behind the scene. Some contemporary
candidates step on others to get their positions, just as Ncedze clung onto the wings
of Dlangala. Contemporary manipulators know that being in a position of power gives
them complete control, including control over economy and their opponents. They
manipulate their victims for political gain such as buying tenders with huge amounts of
money, selling positions in social institutions and using state money at the expense of
poor communities. They employ different strategies, such as telling lies and giving
empty promises to obtain votes. This is affirmed by Dlamini (2019:1), in City Press, 17
May, 2019. who reported on the impact of empty promises on voters during South
Africa’s general elections in 2019. Communities can learn from folktale characters and
be wary of power-hungry people who will do anything, however harmful, to get what
they want. To avoid continuous manipulation, intended victims should unite in exposing
these manipulators and remove them from their unmerited positions, as in the case of
Ncedze who was exposed and shown to be disqualified for the position he wanted.

6.2.2 Jealousy as a causal factor

The analysis reveals that jealousy is one of the causes of manipulation in Siswati
folktales. This jealousy stems from things such as envy of others’ working conditions,
a friend’s beautiful girlfriend, and another’s assets. Furthermore, the findings of the
study revealed that this jealousy is often prevalent among characters who know each
other very well, e.g. characters who are friends, relatives, and co-workers.

In folktale 17, Chakijane (Mongoose) manipulated Mphisi (Hyena), his best friend, to
get his girlfriend. He lied to the girl saying that Mphisi was a fool who allowed Chakijane
to use him as his horse This describes manipulators in current society who do not use
their intelligence for the good of the public, but to get what they want in alliance with
those who share their vested interests at the expense of their less intelligent or less
knowledgeable victims. Manipulators in this regard engage in lies and deny all
allegations made against them, just as Chakijane did to his friends. In several cases
victims are manipulated by those whom they trust, such as friends and relatives.

190
Masipa (2015) reported on a woman who tortured and abused her boyfriend because
of jealousy, suspecting that he was unfaithful Present-day manipulators also make
sure that they motivate their statements until the victim is convinced of their credibility.
On the other hand, while the less intelligent victim may try to disprove the allegations
against them, the manipulator cleverly turns the wheel in her or his favour, as
Chakijane did to Mphisi. Intended victims can control manipulation by being vigilant
and cautious of so-called friends who try to manipulate them out of jealousy.

6.2.3 Fame and recognition

The findings of the study revealed that fame and recognition are causal factors of
manipulation in Siswati folktales. In folktale 11, the ambitious Logwaja (Hare) was
motivated by the desire for fame and recognition from the other animals. He devised
a plan to degrade the big animals, Bhubesi (Lion) and Ndlovu (Elephant) that were
already famous and regarded as heroic and authoritative figurers by the community.
He gained fame, respect and recognition by manipulating the big animals.

This aligns well with present-day ambitious manipulators who desire to be famous.
According to Cunningham (2019), Be Somebody Medium com, there are super
manipulators who have extra ordinary “extraordinary ambition but not quite extra
ordinary talent”; because they lack the talent to overcome failure, they use words to
brainwash their victims, while working behind their backs to plan their downfall. In
many instances fame, respect and recognition are usually earned, which can take long
to achieve, but contemporary manipulators do not care about the effort and challenges
their victims went through when planning their downfall in a twinkling of an eye. They
usually achieve their goals, capitalizing on the misguided trust of the victims. This kind
of manipulation is practised in different social institutions, e.g. government institutions,
homes, workplaces, and churches. The manipulators study their victims well before
embarking on their mission. Intended victims can control manipulation by not judging
a person by his or her physical stature, but by what the mind is capable of doing since
manipulators work with their minds.

191
 6.2.4 Bribery and other false promises

The researcher discovered that in Siswati folktales, manipulators use bribery as a way
of getting their victims’ attention. This is observed in folktale 19, where the Mphungutje
(Jackal) used bribes to manipulate Mfene (Baboon) on several occasions.

In contemporary situations, certain victims are offered bribes to erase, suspend, or

sabotage allegations or crimes levelled against the manipulator. The victims are
derailed from looking into serious acts committed by the manipulator and enjoy the
bribes that benefit them for a short period, as Mfene did, while the manipulator
continues with his manipulative acts, as Mpungutje did. In folktales, victims of
manipulation are offered distractions to make them forget the hurts and manipulative
acts, just like today, where manipulators take advantage of their poor victims and give
them food parcels, etc. in exchange for votes. “gifts” which are really bribes, to suspend
allegations. Masipa (2019) in Daily Sun, 24 April 2019, gave a report on a mother and
daughter displaying money given to them to buy their silence and drop an attempted
murder case. Intended victims can control manipulation by not being influenced by
any gift or offer from the alleged manipulator.

6.3 Victims’ actions that promote manipulation

At times, victims provide opportunities for manipulators to practise manipulative

behaviour. In such cases, the victims are unaware that they are giving themselves or
their community into the hands of manipulators. The following paragraphs detail how
victims render themselves vulnerable to manipulators.

6.3.1 Ignorance of the victim

The analysis revealed that the victim’s ignorance encourages manipulative acts, to the
advantage of the manipulator. In folktale 12, Ngcamngceshe (King of the
Grasshoppers) and his subjects trusted the suggestions imposed on them by
Logolantsetse (grasshopper catcher). Logolantsetse suggested that they all close their
eyes to pray, knowing that this would push his agenda of feasting on the grasshoppers
while their eyes were closed.

192
He further frightened them that, should they open their eyes, the wrath of the Almighty
would be upon them. They just accepted and took the impositions without question.
Logolantsetse and his four children feasted on grasshoppers while their eyes were
closed.

According to Villines (2013:19), anyone can be manipulated but skilled manipulators

are likely to target people who are naive or ignorant, lonely and impulsive. In modern
society, men and women endure abuse because of ignorance. Their partners abuse
them, and they remain silent because they are naïve, ignorant, and trusting. Some
manipulators abuse their victims physically, verbally, emotionally, and sexually in the
name of love. The manipulator uses flattery to convince their victim that they have their
best interests at heart. They make promises that the abuse and manipulation will not
happen again and sometimes vow that they have repented; to no avail. The naïve and
ignorant victims believe them, and in the process, advance the act of manipulation.
Campaigns, radio and television programmes are designed to educate those who are
manipulated and abused, but the victims often remain ignorant, ignore the warnings,
and remain victims of manipulation for the rest of their lives. In folktale 12, one
grasshopper opened his eyes while everyone’s eyes were closed, and saved many
grasshoppers from perishing. Thus, intended victims, victims, and the family and
friends of victims can curb manipulative acts by being perceptive and vigilant in order
to expose the tricks of the manipulator.

6.3.2 Making impulsive decisions

The findings of the study revealed that victims might lend themselves to manipulation
by committing mistakes that drive manipulative tendencies forward. In folktale 13,
Salukati (the old lady) allowed herself to be manipulated by taking part in the game
suggested by Chakijane (Mongoose) without thinking how harmful the game could be.
The old lady’s participation in the game led her to fall victim to hungry Chakijane who
cooked and ate her to satisfy his hunger.

This relates well to contemporary manipulators who promote get-rich schemes,

attractive games, and competitions that appear worthy but are in fact ruinous. Victims

193
ignorantly take part without understanding the terms and conditions of the competition,
the rules of the games, or the actual outcomes. Mogashoa (2014:106) affirms that
victims do not make a proper analysis that may reveal their manipulators’ true
intentions. When victims take impulsive decisions, it may at a later stage result in
manipulative acts against them. In making these hasty decisions, victims might be
influenced by a number of factors, such as proving a point, getting attention, getting
rich quickly, or through sheer ignorance. Present-day citizens can learn from the old
lady in folktale 13 who fell prey to the manipulator because of making an impulsive
decision. They can therefore avoid making impulsive decisions and do proper research
before making any decision, big or small.

6.3.3 Becoming vulnerable to manipulation through inappropriate

submission

The analysis revealed that manipulators capitalise on the submissiveness of their

victims to carry out their acts of manipulation. In folktale 4, the two submissive cows
humbled themselves and apologised for not attending the meeting. The king in turn
used their humility to manipulate them. The cows thought that they were right to submit
to their leader but Bhubesi (Lion) capitalized on their submissiveness and exploited
the situation.

Simon (2010:117) writes that victims who have submissive or depended personality
are more vulnerable to manipulative acts. Manipulators take advantage of their
submissive character. The more emotionally dependant the victims are, the more
vulnerable they are to be exploited and manipulated. Contemporary manipulators also
take advantage of submissive victims, e.g. in families, where the submissive child
suffers manipulative treatment while the aggressive child remains untouched. In
workplaces, the submissive are given a heavy workload while their non-submissive
colleagues enjoy their freedom. Usually the obedient are the most punished as
compared to their non-compliant colleagues. This happens in contemporary
institutions, both social and traditional, such as churches, schools, and initiation
schools. Acts of manipulation are in fact prevalent in such institutions. Van Dijk ()
asserts that many forms of commercial, political or religious persuasion may be seen

194
as ethical and legitimate, but may serve as tools to manipulate others. Today, many
young people are searching for a “true religion”. Some contemporary leaders exploit
this opportunity and make members engage in questionable acts as a sign of
submission. Many victims submit to church leaders as if they are deities without
noticing that they are being manipulated. In contemporary traditional institutions, such
as initiation schools, initiates are often exploited by manipulators who expect them to
submit to the leader and not necessarily to the ancestors, while the leader uses their
submissiveness to his advantage. Intended victims can control manipulation related to
oppression by not being overly submissive to their leaders. They should have
confidence in themselves, as the brave cow did in folktale 4. She used her hind legs
to fight and overcame the king. Intended victims can use their intelligence to fight the
manipulators.

6.3.4 Disobedience as a causal factor for manipulation

The data analysed revealed that disobedience is another causal factor for manipulative
acts. In folktale 2, where Kati (Cat) warned Chudze (Cock) not to open the door to
anyone during his absence, Chudze disobeyed and ended up being caught by
Mphungutje (Jackal). It seemed that Mphungutje was aware that his victim was
warned, yet used gracious-seeming guile to persuade him to open the door. Chudze
suffered repeated manipulation but never learned from his mistakes.

This action prevails in real life situations. At times, victims are warned against the
possibility of being manipulated by known manipulators, but ignore the warning.
Siswati folktales show that some victims experience repeated attacks but still never
learn from their mistakes. Paul and Elder (2004:5) declare that people who are skilled
in manipulation want to influence the beliefs and behaviours of others. They add that
manipulators also have insight into what makes people vulnerable to manipulation. As
a result, manipulators strive to appear before their targeted victims in ways that
associate them with being powerful, having greater authority, and practising
conventional morality. This aligns very well with what is happening in the contemporary
world where disobedience is the cause of most acts of manipulation, e.g. the majority
of young people who become addicted to drugs and other toxic substances were

195
warned by their parents, churches, and schools about the dangers of substance abuse,
yet remained disobedient. Some vow to quit the toxic substance, but allow themselves
to again be persuaded by manipulators who might be friends or drug dealers, to go
back to using the substance. Manipulators continue to mislead these youngsters
because for them this is a lucrative business.

Present-day manipulators are able to exploit their victim’s beliefs, norms and standards
to their advantage. Destructive, manipulative acts like these are usually ongoing
because the manipulator knows that even though the victim may be warned, if they
persist, they can eventually get the victims to disregard the warning. Intended victims
can curb such manipulative acts by heeding the warnings and repulsing the
manipulator at his or her first attempt at manipulation.

6.3.5 Impatience as the causal factor for manipulation

The analysis revealed that impatience is one of the causal factors for manipulative
practices. Some victims are vulnerable to being manipulated because they are
impatient. In folktale 3, the chicken family were impatient; they could not wait for
Lohheyane (Hawk) to come back with the food. As a result, they left Lohheyane’s eggs
and went looking for Lohheyane without success. During the chicken’s absence a
python ate all Lohheyane’s eggs.

Dodgson (2017) reported that people who are obsessed about being loved are hooked
with “love bombardment” where they are showered with gifts and endless promises for
the future. This makes them believe that they have discovered love. She further
highlights that things progress quickly, so that manipulation can take place before they
realise the deception., so that manipulation can take place before they realise the
deception. In real life, we see people obsessed about reaching a particular goal or
attaining targets who fall prey to the manipulator’s tactics because they do not give a
thought about the drawbacks of whatever the manipulator puts on the table. Their
obsession to get things done prematurely advances their chance of being manipulated.
Victims are eager to get rich, but because they find it difficult to wait for the right time
or season, they are vulnerable to being manipulated by scams, pyramid schemes, and

196
false investments where they are promised to get huge amounts of money within a
short space of time. To eliminate chances of being manipulated, intended victims can
discover safe ways to achieve their goals, e.g. by hard work and education, and to wait
patiently for the correct time to get whatever they want to achieve.

6.3.6 Accepting invitations without asking for genuine reasons

The analysis revealed that manipulators usually invite their victims to participate in
something in order to manipulate them. In folktale 20, Ngwenya (the crocodile) invited
Ngobiyane (Monkey) to come into the river in order to kill him. Ngwenya wanted to use
Ngobiyane’s heart to heal his sick mother. Fortunately, Ngobiyane was clever and
could think very fast, so he in turn manipulated the crocodile by politely asking him to
take him back to the tree to fetch his heart.

It is seen that manipulators either invite their victims personally or through social
media, to partake in something with the aim of manipulating them, e.g. job offers such
as modelling or participating in a beauty pageant in exchange for sex. As reported by
Mabuza (2018) in The Sunday Times, 03, June, 2018, a woman alleged that she was
lured via social media to accept an invitation to meet a man who then kidnapped,
assaulted and raped her. Many times the invited victims do not see anything odd,
accepting at face-value that this is a mere invitation. The motives of the manipulator
only become clear when the victim is in the middle of nowhere, where he or she cannot
go home or change his or her mind. Currently, many such people become victims of
human trafficking, but some are killed for muti (traditional medicine) or cult purposes,
just as the crocodile wanted to kill Ngobiyane for muti. Intended victims can help curb
such manipulative practices if they avoid accepting invitations from untrustworthy
people – known or unknown – as well as from social media. People should be
discerning, e.g. they should thoroughly investigate the authenticity of any job offer
before accepting the invitation, and should read all the fine print before consenting to
participate or receiving free gifts.

197
6.4 Victims of manipulation in folk narratives

From the analysis conducted, it is clear that ordinary characters are targeted by
manipulators since certain manipulative acts are carried out on community members,
groups or a society. The following paragraphs provide information on victims of
manipulation.

6.4.1 Leaders and followers

The findings of the study revealed that leaders who are ignorant become targets of
manipulation, especially when the manipulator wants to manipulate both the leader
and his followers. This is observed in folktale 12, where Logolantsetse (Grasshopper
Catcher) manipulated the grasshoppers and their king, Ngcamngceshe. Logolantsetse
first won the leader’s trust by singing his praises. Because King Ngcamngceshe was
overwhelmed by the accolades and flattery, he made impulsive decisions that enabled
the manipulator to accomplish his manipulative acts against him and his. Van Dijk
(2006:375) contends that strong emotions and trauma can render people vulnerable.
King Ngcamngceshe became vulnerable because of his vanity, gullibility in accepting
the flattery, and wanting to show appreciation for the praises he received from
Logolantsetse.

This applies today, where the manipulator takes advantage of the leader’s ignorance
to make manipulative suggestions for the manipulator’s benefit. The followers in this
regard, tend to listen to their leader and implement the manipulator’s suggestions. In
the end, the entire group falls for the manipulator’s tricks. Pilling and Cotterill (2017:64),
writing about South Africa’s former president and the Gupta family, who managed to
gain influence over the country, Times, 30 November, 2017 and Cotterill (2017:64),
maintain that the ignorance of the leader contributed to state capture. The whole nation
suffered because of their leader – in the same way that the grasshoppers were
captured and killed by Logolantsetse and family because of the ignorance of their
leader, Ngcamngceshe. This shows that leaders who are ignorant can cause an entire
group of people under their influence to be manipulated, especially if the leader is
unaware of the manipulator’s tricks. Contemporary leaders can prevent themselves

198
and their followers from being manipulated by not being seduced by praises and
flattery by those who offer words of advice with ulterior motives that advance the
manipulator’s agenda.

6.4.2 Servants/helpers and masters

The findings of the research have brought to light that former and present-day servants
are also targets of manipulation. In folktale 7, Gundvwane (Rat) was a faithful servant
of Sihhanya (Wildcat). Sihhanya took advantage of Gundvwane as a faithful, diligent
servant and assigned him duties beyond his capabilities, such as caring for her kittens
when there was little food, and consequently punished him using manipulation for the
one mistake he made when trying to help the kittens who were dying of hunger.

This can also work the other way round, where the faithful servant takes advantage of
the trust bestowed on him by his master and uses it to his own advantage. Sometimes
masters trust their servants to an extent that they leave everything in their hands. In
folktale 25, Lompunzi (Bushbuck) trusted Chakidze (Mongoose) enough to allow her
children to stay with Chakidze in a secret place known only to him, and Chakidze
ended up eating all Lompunzi’s children without him being aware.

This kind of manipulation reflects what is currently happening. In a news report in the
Kempton Express (Dlamini, 2016), exposed a domestic worker who stole R500 000
cash from her employer’s car, parked in the garage; she took advantage of the ignorant
employer, stole the money and ran away just as Chakide did to Lompunzi and ended
up vanishing in tall grases. Many people trust their helpers to excess, e.g. the servant
knows where the master’s valuables are kept, and later exploits the master’s trust by
stealing the valuables and vanishing. In addition, child minders are known to arrange
for the abduction of their employers’ children for ransom. Manipulation could be
curbed, if employers set clear boundaries and both servants and employers take
responsibility in honouring those boundaries.

199
6.4.3 The defenceless, helpless, poor and old as prospective targets of
manipulation

Siswati folktales highlight that some victims of manipulation are aware of the tricks of
their manipulators but cannot counteract the tricks, thus allowing the manipulator to
take advantage of their vulnerability. In folktale 5, Mphangele (Guinea fowl) was
manipulated by human beings who took her eggs. Guinea fowl was aware of the tricks
played on her by the manipulators but could not counteract them because she was
defenceless. In this folktale, guinea fowl and the snake joined forces to defeat their
manipulator. This shows that if intended victims can join forces, they can defeat their
manipulator. This also applies to the helpless old lady in folktale 13, who could not
fight back against Chakijane who manipulated her by playing maphekaphekana
(game) with the aim of cooking her to assuage his hunger. She was defenceless
because of her age.

This relates well to real life situations, as reported by Seleke (2019) on News 24, 18
March 2019, she spoke about a mob of people allegedly killed an elderly person who
was accused of witchcraft, in Sterkspruit in the Eastern Cape. Residents believed she
had been responsible for the death of a young man in that area. The mob drowned the
defenceless old lady by shoving her head into a water-filled drum, torched her
rondavel, and then attacked her traumatised defenceless 23-year-old granddaughter.
It is evident tha present day manipulators take advantage of defenceless old people
and the physically and mentally challenged, e.g. they are robbed, assaulted and
sometimes killed, for instance because they are branded as witches. In this analysis,
guinea fowl and snake joined forces to confront the manipulative behaviour and defeat
their manipulators. Our fellow community members need interested parties to
intervene and help defenceless victims to defend themselves against their
manipulators, just as the intervention of the snake saved guinea fowl’s eggs.

6.4.4 Character who displays stupidity

The research analysis confirms that stupidity is a causal factor for manipulative
behaviour, allowing manipulators to twist their victim’s minds to their own advantage.
This is confirmed by Van Dijk (2006:365), who asserts that “manipulating people

200
involves manipulating their minds, which includes people’s beliefs, knowledge,
opinions, and ideologies; this in turn, ensures that the manipulator controls their
actions”. In folktale 9, Mfene (Baboon) displayed stupidity by allowing his friend
Mphungutje to make a fool of him on several occasions.

In real life situations, people act impulsively and make stupid mistakes, which advance
the manipulator’s objectives. They do whatever their manipulators tell them to do
without thinking about the outcomes. Such victims do not learn from their mistakes and
repeatedly fall prey to manipulation. This kind of manipulation can be controlled if
intended victims are more self-aware, disciplined, and less gullible. They should also
avoid taking bribes.

6.4.5 Victims who do not listen or take heed of warnings

Most victims trust their manipulators and cannot imagine their trusted friends
disappointing them. In folktale 8, Chudze (Cock) was warned by Kati (Cat) that
Mpungutje (Jackal) might catch and kill him, but he trusted Mpungutje more than his
friend Kati (cat). Chudze was quick to believe his manipulator as he told him that he
had repented about what had happened before and that it would never happen again.
By believing and accepting apologies from Mpungutje, Chudze allowed the
manipulative acts to become repetitive.

become repetitive.

Van Walbeek (2005:184) reports that the Tobacco Product Control Amendment Act,
Act 12 of 1999, banned cigarette advertising in South Africa but people are still
smoking. She further explains that there a warning labels on cigarette packages stating
the dangers of smoking cigarette but most people do not take heed of those warnings
just as likati havs been warned several times but still became the vuctim. This relates
to current contemporary victims of manipulation; they usually do not heed warnings
from their friends or relatives, and do not learn from their mistakes. They subsequently
fall prey to repeated manipulation, e.g. teenagers who are warned about having sex
with many partners without using condoms and other precautions. Manipulators tell

201
 the girls that they will not fall pregnant; some boys tell them that they cannot eat a
wrapped sweet. The girls disregard the warnings and contract STIs or become
pregnant. Intended victims can help curb this kind of manipulation by confidently
heeding the warnings and having the strength of mind not to be manipulated.

6.5 Perpetrators of manipulation in folktales

Manipulators in Siswati folktales use strategies to manipulate their victims. The

following are examples of manipulation, as depicted in the previous chapter.

6.5.1 Those in power

Paul and Elder (2004:4) assert that manipulators are typically individuals who have
acquired more power and occupy positions of authority. They are accustomed to
playing the dominant role in relationships, and know how to use the established power
relations to advance their interests. Manipulators are fundamentally concerned, not
with advancing rational values, but with getting what they want – therefore, they are
careful to present themselves as sharing the values of those they manipulate.

The findings of the study revealed that folktale characters, especially those in power,
often abuse their power and carry out manipulative acts towards their victims. In
folktale 21, King Ndlovu (Elephant) exercised his power to manipulate his subjects,
who worked very hard to eradicate hunger while he was not participating. He was
successful until, to everybody’s surprise, the elephant was caught and killed.
Contemporary manipulators use their power and authority in an unbecoming way to
trick the humble and hardworking people under their authority. They practice corruption
and loot money that belongs to their victims without their knowing. The manipulator
benefits from the hard work of their victims while they remain hungry and poor.
Kgosana and Hunter (2018) in The Sunday Times, 26 October 2016, reported the
looting of VBS Mutual bank, the majority of whose shareholders and investors are from
rural communities. Most of them had worked very hard to raise money for their
investments. Manipulators looted and the investors were left with nothing. Intended

202
victims can help curb manipulative tendencies if managers and leaders use their power
responsibly.

6.5.2 The knowledgeable

In wider society in general, across the world, we observe that leaders can use
ignorance to their advantage. The knowledgeable often manipulate the ignorant. In
folktale 22, a boy called Sonkhofungane knew about being compensated. He took his
dead grandmother to the restaurant, sat her in a chair as if she was alive, and ordered
meals for two. He used his knowledge to trick the restaurant manager to compensate
him for the “death” of his dead grandmother. The restaurant manager lacked the
knowledge that he could further investigate whether compensation was merited. He
did not even ask Sonkhofungane to prove that the incident had indeed happened in
the restaurant, whether the grandmother had a health condition that could have caused
her sudden death, whether she had choked because she did not chew the food
properly, etc.. “Manipulators know that victims who lack relevant knowledge are unable
to counteract or oppose arguments or false, inconclusive or biased assertions levelled
against them” (Van Dijk: 375). There is a maxim, “Knowledge is power”. Present-day
victims who do not know the background of their manipulators, or their rights, are likely
to fall prey to their manipulators’ evil schemes, e.g. in poor farming communities where
farm workers are illiterate and unaware of their rights, the workers accept what they
are told or given. Knowledgeable citizens can help curb manipulation by empowering
those who are ignorant.

6.5.3 The intelligent

The study revealed that intelligent characters often manipulative the less intelligent. In
folktale 11, LogwajaGwaja (Hare), a small, clever animal, manipulated the big, unwise
Bhubesi (Lion) and Ndlovu (Elephant) by letting them pull the rope against one
another. LogwajaGwaja was jealous of the big animals who had power and control
owing to their big stature. Logwaja wanted to prove that he was also deserving of
respect because of his intelligence, which was more important than physical strength.
Gwaja ended up becoming king with power and control.

203
 This relates well to real-life situations, as reported by Naki (2019) in The Citizen. He
reported that the EFF leader Julius Malema had succeeded in dividing senior ANC
members, setting them “at each other’s throats” by alleging that Hanekom and the
SACP deputy secretary-general had plotted to oust President Jacob Zuma, and
claiming that Hanekom had provided him with a list of ANC MPs who would vote in
favour of the EFF’s EFF-sponsored motion of no confidence in Zuma. Today, such
leaders of small parties, eager to take over power from experienced leaders, of the
bigger parties use their intelligence to challenge their big brothers. This relates well to
contemporary leaders of small parties who are eager to take over power from
experienced leaders of the bigger parties. They use their intelligence to challenge their
big brothers. As Logwaja did in the folktale, the small parties campaign for the downfall
of the big parties by getting them to fight one another as individuals or a group without
being aware of what is happening behind the scenes, just as Bhubesi and Ndlovu
ended up pulling against one another. Contemporary communities should take note
that victims who underestimate their manipulators, end up falling prey to their
manipulative acts. They should take care not to underestimate people based on their
small stature, and should consider the power of the brain. Most manipulators use their
intelligence to plan and implement strategies for their benefit.

6.6 Strategies used by manipulators to get the attention of

their victims

Manipulators use different strategies to catch their victims, depending on the setting
and the tools they use to manipulate.

6.6.1 Using trickery as a strategy for manipulation

We see trickery used as a strategy, among people everywhere. One observes that
manipulative leaders get the attention of their victims, and that this strategy is mostly
used to manipulate those with less intelligence. According to Van Dijk (2006:360) the
act of manipulation always involves mental manipulation, where the manipulator uses
his mental powers to get the attention of his victim. In folktale 9, Chakijane (Mongoose)
employed trickery to manipulate Bhubesi (Lion), the King of the jungle. Chakijane,

204
ambitious for power and respect, spread rumours that the king was his horse and that
he could ride him at any time. When the king confronted him about the truth of the
rumours, Chakijane denied the allegation and used his ability as a quick thinker to turn
the wheel for his benefit. He suggested that they verify the allegations so that he could
be punished if he was really the culprit. Chakijane pretended to be innocent and set
his plans in motion without arousing the suspicions of his victim. Chakijane even
involved his victim in his plans by pretending to have injured his toe and requesting
Bhubesi to carry him on his back.

This aligns with real life situations where intelligent people use trickery to gain power.
This is confirmed by Bowling (2011:68), who mentions that most manipulated people
do not consciously surrender their power, so manipulators have to use trickery and
deception in order to get the victim’s acquiescence. At some point, the one with brains
distorts information or DNA results to gain the upper hand. If by any chance the
manipulator suspects any irregularities, which may derail their plans, they are able to
evade punishment while their victims suffer disgrace and humiliation. Present-day
citizens can help curb manipulative behaviour if they study the person with whom they
interact and evaluate every word before taking action, since manipulators use trickery
as a tool to manipulate their victims.

6.6.2 Being time conscious when taking actions

The findings highlighted that being time conscious is one of the many strategies used
by manipulators to enhance the speed at which they carry out their manipulative acts.
In folktale 12, Logolantsetse (Grasshopper Catcher) immediately created a platform
that enabled manipulation; he quickly implemented the plan to eat the grasshoppers
before he and his four children were caught. He stressed that he did not want to waste
his victim’s time, while speeding up his own agenda.

This kind of manipulation is visible when false deals are offered to the victim, as
reported by Mehlwane (2018) in the Daily Sun, 6 September, 2018 that an old man
was robbed of R55 000 in a risky diamond deal. The 68-year-old was scammed out of
money thinking that he was buying diamond. The manipulator drives for quick

205
responses and quick signing of the deal before the victim is aware of his manipulative
behaviour, e.g. manipulators who sell or promote goods by falsely saying that the item
is the only one left or is the last in that range. The victims are usually unaware that the
sales pitch is aimed at triggering a quick response to a possible bad deal. Intended
victims can control manipulative behaviour by being wary of people who push for a
quick response, since manipulators use that strategy to get people to make bad
purchases or decisions.

6.6.3 Cruelty to and bullying of the powerless and defenceless

According to the analysis, it is evident that cruelty and bullying are used to manipulate
victims in Siswati folktales. Characters in authority bully their victims, who are often
powerless and defenceless, to gain their respect and submission. The victims end up
submitting, not out of respect, but because of fear. In folktale 5, human beings bullied
defenceless Mphangele (Guinea Fowl) to take her eggs that were about to hatch. This
manipulation stopped after the intervention of the snake who hid underneath
Mphangele’s nest and bit those who tried to take the eggs.

This aligns well with real life where school children are bullied and their belongings,
such as money, text books, and clothing, are forcefully taken. as reported by a
concerned mother (The Village News, 2019); bullies at a primary school in Hermanus
put hot glue on the back of her son’s neck, looted his bag, and stole sweets from his
bag of sweets on an ongoing basis. Some victims are first bullied, abused and
assaulted before their valuables are taken. Vigilant and responsible community
members can devise strategies to catch the perpetrators and deal with them, just as
the snake and guinea fowl in folktale 5 joined forces to fight the manipulators, and win.

6.6.4 Perseverance as a strategy for manipulation

It was found in Siswati folktales that manipulators never give up; they follow their
victims and watch their every move so that they can easily strategize. If victims change
their living arrangements or relocate, the manipulators look for them until they find
them. In folktale 23, Lizimu (Ogre) wanted to catch the girl who stayed behind when

206
her parents relocated. Ogre displayed outstanding perseverance towards achieving
his goal of catching the girl to satisfy his hunger. He always had a plan B, in case plan
A failed. Several times, he asked the girl to open the door using his own voice and
failed. He then watched her hut, and copied her mother’s voice when her mother
brought her food. The girl was eventually convinced that the person knocking at the
door was her mother and opened the door.

Mapepa (2019:56) utters that manipulators persevere, and adapt their strategies in
order to gain control over their victims; This aligns with real life manipulators who
persevere until their manipulative goals are achieved. If necessary, they revisit or
change their strategies to catch their victims. Intended victims can help curb
manipulative tendencies by being cautious of people who tend to persevere in an
extraordinary manner to get what they want, since manipulators use that strategy to
manipulate their victims.

6.6.5 Pretending to be life savers

In Siswati folktales, manipulators act as lifesavers to trick their victims. In folktale 26,
Logwaja (Hare) acted as if he had the solution to all problems. When he saw the pot
full of meat, he kindly offered to help Bhubesi (Lion) to thatch his roof as a ploy to get
food. Logwaja told Bhubesi that he was not hungry but just wanted to help King
Bhubesi to thatch his roof. Logwaja’s plan to work inside the roof while Bhubesi worked
on the outside was successful because he was able to tie Logwaja’s tail inside the roof
to keep him trapped while he took the pot full of meat for himself. It is evident that
Logwaja volunteered to help for personal gain.

In real life, this act of manipulation unfolds in different social settings and often has
positive outcomes for the manipulator because everyone needs help or solutions to
his or her problems at some time. Mapepa (2019:56), describing how manipulators
persist and adapt their strategies to gain control over their victims, He further reveals
that how records their initial eagerness to help swiftly morphs into sighs, groans and
suggestions that whatever they agreed to do is a great burden; but if plan does not
work, they turn the blame on the victim. Manipulators tend to pretend to have ubuntu

207
(humanity), like volunteering to help, while creating platforms for their manipulations.
Present-day citizens can avoid being manipulated by bearing in mind that manipulators
can be helpful while their ulterior motive is to gain something for themselves.

6.6.6 Assessing circumstances of the victims

According to Van Dijk (2006: 375), for manipulators to pull off their tricks successfully,
they need to have a mental model of the victims that gives them an idea regarding
whether or not the victims lack knowledge, what informs their ideologies, the state of
their emotions, their experiences, and so on. In folktale 18, Logwaja assessed the
circumstances of the crocodiles

According to Bradberry (2019:69), manipulators portray vulnerability and sensitivity,

using it to make the victim feel “special” while entering their inner circle. He further
mentions that manipulators sometimes make the victim feel sorry and responsible for
their feelings in order to manipulate.and established weaknesses that he could use for
his benefit.

In real life, manipulators are quick to identify their victim’s vulnerabilities and plan how
to use these vulnerabilities to the manipulator’s advantage. Intended victims can
protect themselves from being manipulated by being aware of manipulative behaviour,
e.g. reporting to the authorities someone roaming around their home or workplace who
is observing their movements, or avoiding a new acquaintance who asks far too many
personal questions.

6.6.7 Capitalizing on weak points to manipulate others

The analysis highlighted that manipulators capitalize on their victims’ weaknesses and
exploit them before their victims realize that their weaknesses are being used for
manipulation. In folktale 15, Lusoti (Hawk) knew that the Tinkhukhu (chicken family
had a tendency to be forgetful, and he used that weakness to manipulate them. The
chickens borrowed an axe from Lusoti, which they then forgot in the field. Lusoti
capitalized on their forgetfulness by feeding on their chicks as punishment.

208
In real life, manipulators use a known weakness of their victims to their advantage,
e.g. as revealed by Bradberry (2019: 68) who pronounces that manipulators know all
the victim’s weak points, and are quick to use them against the victims. If the victim is
insecure about something, they use it to intimidate and use the victim’s emotions to
manipulate. the manipulator may use the carelessness of a victim to access or destroy
important documents as part of his or her plan for their victim’s downfall. People could
avoid becoming a victim to this kind of manipulation by not revealing their weak points
to prospective manipulators.

6.6.8 Shifting the blame

Shifting the blame is a strategy used by characters in folktales to manipulate their

victims. In folktale 28, Tsekwane (Lightning Bird) blamed Sikhova (Owl) for the loss of
her nest and her children, which was actually due to Tsekwane’s own carelessness.
She held her victim, Sikhova, accountable for offences he did not commit. Tsekwane
left her children and her belongings and went in search of water so she could see her
reflection in it. When she finally returned home, she found that the leopard had eaten
her children. Sikhova was blamed for what happened during Tsekwane’s absence.

This is in line with contemporary manipulators who blame an innocent person for not
doing something for which the manipulator was responsible, as reported by Ginindza
(2019) in Daily Sun;where the family of a man who died in an accident when a taxi
collided with a truck, overlooked to search for the cause of the accident, instead they
blamed the government for not bringing services to their area. In some cases, for
instance, people blame the government for their failures. Intended victims can curb
this kind of manipulative behaviour by exposing where the actual responsibility for their
manipulator’s actions lie, and and thus prevent them from shifting the blame onto
others.

6.6.9 Playing victim as a strategy to carry out manipulative acts

Playing the victim is another strategy used by manipulators. In folktale 6, Kati (cat)
played the victim to get the attention of Inja (the dog). Kati pretended that working

209
inside their master’s house caused her to suffer greatly so she could gain Inja’s
sympathy and not be expected to work outside.

This aligns well with real life. reported by Nkambule (2018) the Daily Sun; 28 March
2018 that some beggars make more money than people in permanent employment,
as some of them make R1 200 per day. Some lazy people pretend to be in need to
gain the sympathy of others who then agree to support them, e.g. beggars, who have
nothing wrong with them physically, pretend that they are disabled, and ask for
assistance in the form of money from their ignorant victims. They end up making a lot
of money without working for it. Intended victims can help curb this kind of manipulative
behaviour by supporting charities that care for the needy instead of giving money to
individuals.

6.7 Settings that promote vulnerability to manipulation

Settings and conditions in Siswati folktales that promote vulnerability to manipulative

behaviour are discussed below.

6.7.1 Loneliness as a causal factor of manipulation

The analysis disclosed that loneliness promotes vulnerability to manipulation in Siswati

folktales. When a character is alone, with no one to talk to, he or she is likely to talk to
strangers. In folktale 13, the old lady was left alone during the day and Chakijane
seized an opportunity to manipulate and kill her. In real life, manipulators seek out and
take advantage of lonely people. Intended victims can help curb manipulation by
arranging for a caretaker to protect vulnerable people, e.g. the old or infirm, from being
manipulated.

6.7.2 Lack of resources and basic needs

The analysis revealed that lack of skills and basic needs can predispose victims to
being manipulated. Victims are defined as those who do not have resources and as
such, are not in a position to resist, detect or avoid manipulation (Van Dijk, 2006: 375).
In folktale 10, the rat community fell prey to Logwaja’s tricks because they had to

210
borrow his scale to divide the bread equally among them. Logwaja used their lack of
resources and reliance on his skills to trick them. According to Van Dijk (2006: 361), a
victim has a passive role in the manipulative act.

In real life, people depend extensively on the expertise of others, especially if they are
from other countries. Moeng (2017) reported in the City Press, 11 January 2017 that
poverty, low levels of education, lack of information and inability are all enemies of
democracy. The condition makes them perpetually vulnerable to the abuse of
politicians, who have mastered the art of throwing “peanuts” in their direction. Victims
may not be able to avoid being manipulated if they are fully dependent on the skills of
the manipulator, and if they lack basic needs, it is likely that manipulators will exploit
this lack to carry out manipulative acts, e.g. making promises to provide them with food
while manipulating them. Intended victims may compromise some of their rights in
order to get their basic needs met. Present-day manipulators also capitalise on the
limited number of learning institutions by opening illegal schools that attract desperate
pupils who are keen to learn. The manipulators benefit from the students’ fees, while
the students have invalid qualifications. This kind of manipulative behaviour could be
curbed if each person tried to meet his or her basic needs, the government and private
sector provided jobs and assistance to those in need, and if manipulators were brought
to book.

6.7.3 Political constraints

Political constrains, e.g. where the king (chief) owns the land and his subjects are just
keepers of the land, or where manipulators give land to people for personal gains and
further deprive the rightful owners of the land. In folktale 16, King Lion oppresses his
subjects (the animals) by forbidding them from eating wild plums (his favourite fruit)
from the land.

In real life, people in authority feather their own nests at the expense of their
underlings, just as Bhubesi restricted his people from enjoying their rightful benefits.
Such manipulators manipulate others by misusing the power and authority vested in
them, while the victims are forced to abide by the rules and regulations. The above

211
 statement is attested by Gumede (2017: 2), reporting in the Mail & Guardian, who
remarks on how governance systems of liberation movements in African countries
often run in parallel to the official national constitutions, institutions and laws of the
countries, leading to abuse of governance to control the citizens to their likings.
Present-day citizens can control manipulative behaviour by educating themselves
about land issues, especially in rural areas where the land is still owned by traditional
leaders.

6.8 Implications of manipulative behaviour

The analysis showed that manipulation has implications for both the manipulator and
the victim, e.g. loss of lives and destruction of relationships. This will be discussed as
displayed by the data analysis in the previous chapter.

6.8.1 Loss of lives

The analysis reveals that some victims of manipulation in Siswati folktales suffered,
endured pain, and were killed for sins that they did not commit. In folktale 24, the
animals decided to spare their food for the following days but Mphungutje (Jackal)
sneaked out, ate some of the food, and smeared fat on Mphisi’s buttocks to make him
look like the one who was guilty. Mphisi (Hyena) lost his life for something that he was
not guilty of doing.

In real-life, many people are killed for sins that they did not commit, e.g. old women
who are wrongly accused of being witches; others are often manipulated because of
their vulnerability, ignorance, disobedience, etc. Victims are punished in the place of
the real culprit, who often walks away freely. Selepe (2019:2), reporting in The Star,
31 May 2019 cites the instance of a Pastor who was killed by mob following false
accusations of murder by a local sangoma. Intended victims can help curb this
behaviour by being vigilant and exposing any suspicious actions against them.

212
 6.8.2 Destruction of relationship

The analysis revealed that manipulative acts can destroy relationships. In folktale 14,
Tinkhukhu (the chicken family and Lusoti (Hawk) were friends and neighbours. Lusoti
trusted the chickens enough to leave her eggs in their care while she went in search
of food. However, the Tinkhukhu abandoned the eggs and went in search of Lusoti,
with the result that the house snake fed on all Lusoti’s eggs. Lusoti and the chickens
became enemies because the snake exploited the situation to his advantage. The
ignorant chickens were then manipulated for the rest of their lives.

In real life, friendships are broken because of manipulation, e.g. two colleagues who
are friends become enemies because the one colleague takes credit for work done by
the other colleague as reported by Gordon (2019) in Very Well Family, 06 November
2019 as he explains that in a manipulative relationship, manipulators make demands
and undermine the victim, acting in a superior way and as if entitled to every things
that belong to the victim; they use sarcasm when speaking to their victims and act as
if they are always right and know better than their victims. Once the victim is aware of
the manipulative strategy, the friendship breaks. At times victims think that their
relatives and friends are kind to them, not being aware that they act kindly in order to
advance their manipulative acts.

6.9 Conclusion

The chapter focused on the findings of the study. The data findings were categorised
into themes and discussed to provide answers to the research questions. The analysis
revealed that the acts of manipulation displayed in Siswati folktales are evident today
in all spheres of life, and in every social setting, including families, neighbours,
communities, and national institutions.

The findings revealed that manipulative acts constitute a social problem where
manipulators use different strategies to persuade their victims to do things that benefit
them, often against the victims’ own interests. Furthermore, the manipulator assesses
the situation of the victim and uses it to his or her advantage. Some settings that lend

213
victims to manipulation were also discussed. These could be natural, political, or social
settings. The findings revealed that manipulators assess all aspects of the settings
before rolling out their plans. It is evident that some victims make themselves
vulnerable to being manipulated by making mistakes that promote the manipulator’s
agenda.

Today, victims of manipulation can still learn from the characters in Siswati folktales.
It is evident that folktales mirror reality in a timeless way, since the same manipulative
behaviours of the characters in folktales can be observed among people in today’s real
life situations. The researcher believes that manipulative behaviour in our society today
can be curbed by using folktales as educational tools.

Lubambo (2015:95) asserts that lessons from folktales were conveniently used by the
emaSwati to pass down their cultural history to their young before people become
literate. She further maintains that lessons from folktales were authentic ways to teach
and share their heritage with the children. Folktales were used to teach and warn
people about certain behaviours that were deemed unacceptable by the community.
Taking those findings into account with the findings of this current research, the
researcher therefore believes that, to this day, lessons from folktales can still be used
to curb manipulative behaviour. This analysis has shown that even though most
characters in Siswati folktales perpetrate manipulative acts, there are equally
strategies used by victims to expose the manipulator or to counter his or her
manipulative act.

214
 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction

The previous chapter analysed the data and presented the findings of the research.
The present chapter summarizes the discussion and provides some recommendations
for future research. The research was a revelatory empirical experience, particularly
when one begins to deliberate on issues of manipulation experienced in all facets of
life, and which consequently affect almost every individual. The study aimed to uncover
the strategies that manipulators in Siswati folktales used to manipulate their victims,
as well as possible methods that can be used to curb manipulation. As was mentioned
in the first chapter, the study investigated whether manipulation in Siswati folktales
corresponds with present-day reality. The findings of the study indicate that the kinds
of manipulation practised in Siswati folktales relates very well to manipulative practices
in real life today, as practised in various social institutions. The findings further reveal
that manipulative acts can be curbed using Siswati folktales as an educational tool.

7.2 Review of the study

The purpose of this study was to investigate manipulative behaviour as reflected in

some Siswati folktales. The research investigated manipulative tendencies in folktales
and further highlighted the implications of such manipulative behaviour, as well as how
the behaviour can be counteracted. The research demonstrated through thematic
analysis that some individuals display manipulative tendencies, as evidenced by
characters in the selected Siswati folktales, and that manipulators can be people from
all walks of life. Van Dijk (1998) concurs that manipulation takes place everywhere,
and is institutionalised. People who are unaware of the actions of manipulators
become their victims. Different kinds of people in various institutional settings
experience manipulation in one way or another.

According to the analysis, people who live or work together, families, friends are often
victims of manipulation by the very people they know very well, as well as others, who

215
too easily trust strangers. The research indicated that manipulative behaviour is fuelled
by different factors, e.g. being power hungry, the tendency to abuse power, jealousy,
and the fact that some victims lend themselves to being manipulated by being ignorant,
stupid, disobedient, and by lacking necessary survival skills and knowledge.

The research revealed that manipulators use different strategies and tools to achieve
their goals. The selected Siswati folktales indicate that people are subjected to
manipulation in real life, and that this happens in most social institutions. Lessons
drawn from Siswati folktales can undoubtedly help counteract manipulative behaviour
and help people of all ages, sexual orientation, or social background to stay vigilant.
In addition, the study revealed that intended victims can protect themselves from being
manipulated by not making impulsive decisions, reporting any suspicious acts, taking
heed of warnings, getting the buy-in of other stakeholders when making important
decisions, not readily trusting strangers, seeking alternative interventions, and
nurturing their talents to be self-reliant. In such ways, people in the contemporary world
can adopt the strategies used by those intended victims of manipulation in the folktales
who exposed and outsmarted their manipulators. The research report is presented in
seven chapters as follows:

Chapter 1 introduced the study. It presented the background information to the study
and Siswati as a language. The study further outlined the statement of the research
as it was mentioned in the first chapter, i.e. that most researchers paid more attention
to the structure and performance of the folktale and that no research was done on the
topic. Hence, the researcher embarked on this aspect since it dominates most themes
of Siswati folktales and recounts to real life situations. The aim and objectives of the
study were also presented in this chapter. The study was undertaken with the aim of
assisting people of all ages and different backgrounds to be vigilant of manipulative
behaviour practised in all facets of life. Furthermore, the chapter introduced critical
discourse analysis and the psychoanalytic approach as the theoretical framework on
which the study is grounded. critical discourse analysis was selected, since it
addresses social problems such as power relations and inequality, as they govern
most manipulative tendencies in societies, while psychoanalytic analysis is more

216
concerned with the way minds are trained to conform to certain situations
(Craib,1989:11). This chapter further presented the methodological approaches where
qualitative methods were selected for collection and interpretation of data. The
qualitative method was selected since it is inductive with the main purpose to describe
multiple realities, develop deep understanding, capture everyday life, and focus on the
human perspective. The chapter concluded by providing the definition of terms used
in this study.

Chapter 2 presented the literature review. A wide range of literature related to the study
was reviewed with the aim of adding to the available and related information,
identifying areas of research, and establishing if the current study would add to the
existing body of knowledge. Sources written in the local indigenous languages were
selected, as well as those written in the indigenous languages of other countries on
the African continent. The researcher consulted published and unpublished sources to
broaden the researcher’s knowledge about the philosophies that govern the research.
The literature review was divided into three categories: The earlier South African
studies of folktales, contemporary studies of folktales, and research studies based on
other African folktales.

In earlier South African studies of folktales, scholars such as Mofokeng (1951),

Marivate (1973), Scheub (1979), Scheub (1979), Rananga (1997), Moephuli (1979),
Oosthuizen (1977), and Makgamatha (1987) were reviewed. Most of these scholars
agree that folktales reflect real life situations in the society where the folktale is told or
performed. Even though some researchers focused on the structure, form and
performance of folktales; classification of folktales, and the comparison of folktales, the
research benefited from these scholars, since in this study folktales were analysed and
later related to real life.

In contemporary studies of folktales, Masuku (2005), Pottow (1992), Dlamini (2000),

Van Straten (1996), and Lubambo (2015) were reviewed. It was discovered that they
also confirm that folktales can be used as a teaching tool and can be used to convey
knowledge and skills to people of various ages with more emphasis on the young ones.

217
This assisted in the progression of the study, since the study is aimed at using folktales
to make people of all ages more vigilant about the manipulative tendencies taking
place in different societies.

In research studies based on other African folktales, Kabaji (2005), Finnegan (1970)
Mota (2009) and Nyaungwa (2008) were reviewed. It was discovered that folktales
have the same values and functions everywhere on the African continent, that
manipulation is practised in all facets of life, and that people in other countries can also
use Siswati folktales to learn how to curb manipulation.

Chapter 3 discussed the theoretical framework of the study. Critical discourse analysis
and the psychoanalytic approach were discussed as the basis of analysis. The views
of scholars such as Van Dijk (1993b), Wodak (2005) and Fairclough (1995) were
adopted as appropriate for the research.

Van Dijk ‘s () focus was on power and domination; his main emphasis was on the social
power of groups or institutions which he further defines as control. Van Dijk further
differentiates the kind of power that prevails in different situations and in different
forms. Thus groups have power if they are able to control the acts and minds of other
groups, i.e. the rich may have power because of their money while teachers may have
power over their learners because of their knowledge. Van Dijk’s () views fuelled the
analysis of the study, since manipulators use power and control as a strategy to
manipulate their victims. The study revealed that those who are intelligent have the
power to manipulate the less intelligent, and that those in authority oppress those who
are subject to them by misusing their power. Van Dijk’s views were of assistance in
identifying and interpreting manipulative behaviour practised by folktale characters
who used their power to manipulate their victims.

Van Dijk () and Wodak (2005) also emphasized that discourse is socially constitutive
and shaped. Thus, discourse constitutes situations, objects of knowledge and the
social identities and relationships between people and groups of people. Wodak also
emphasized that as discourse is historical, available knowledge should be integrated
with the historical background of the particular social or political fields where the

218
discourse is attached. This advanced the research on Siswati folktale since folktales,
as available sources, are dated from time immemorial. The study aligned the
manipulative acts of folktale characters with contemporary manipulative tendencies.

According to Fairclough, critical discourse analysis is the “analysis of the dialectical

relationships between semiosis (including language) and other elements of social
practices” (Fairclough, 2001b:123). Fairclough emphasized that Critical discourse
should be based on revealing the hidden meaning of discourse and on the relationship
between causality and determination between discursive practices, events and text as
well as on the society. His main emphasis is on social problems from a semiotic aspect,
however, he agrees that power relation and control dominate discourse.

The study tells that the three scholars agree that discourse is socially constituted and
accounts for text, talk, power relations, social identities, dominance, and the
relationship between people. This helped the researcher to describe, interpret, and
analyse the data. The scholars further agree that power dominance and power abuse
are key points in manipulation.

Although Fairclough, Van Dijk and Ruth Wodak are the main proponents of critical
discourse analysis, views of other scholars such as Gee (1999), Alvesson (2004), and
Tenario, (2011) were also considered. Gee (1999) frames discourse as indicative of a
broader social pattern and practices and concentrates on discourse used as
advertising strategies, especially in nutrition, curriculum and social institutions. Gee
adds that in discourse analysis, language illustrates, constructs and defines reality.
Tenario (2011) focused on the heterogeneity of critical discourse analysis, its power to
attract, its strong qualities, and weak points. Tenario (2011) clarified commonly used
terms that play a role in critical discourse analysis, e.g., ideology, dominance, power
prejudice and representation, and dwelt on problem-orientated social research that
includes critical discourse analysis.

Alvesson (2004) deliberated on the macro level of discourse and claimed that it is a
level that is focused on how individuals and groups use language in a social setting.

219
He further mentioned that talk occurs in a natural setting and is not influenced by the
researcher.

The rationale behind the choice of this approach was attained since critical discourse
analysis assisted the researcher to investigate the hidden motivation of manipulators
in Siswati folktales. Additionally, critical discourse analysis enabled the researcher to
identify manipulative strategies, and other factors that may encourage vulnerability to
manipulation.

Besides Critical Discourse Analyses this chapter also presented the Psychoanalytic
approach as a method of analysis. In Psychoanalytic Approach views of Freud (1926),
Frosh (2010) and Gellner (1985) were also adopted since they hold that our thoughts,
feelings, and behaviour are determined by factors outside of our conscious awareness
and, therefore, there is a hidden meaning in every discourse and action.

The Psychoanalytic approach is a social critique that seeks to expose power situations
that rely on the denial of opposition and the pretence that it is necessary to maintain
existing patterns of domination. This assisted the study to identify power and
dominance that led to manipulative tendencies in Siswati folktales. The theory further
explains mental phenomena such as thoughts, feelings and behaviour as the result of
interacting and opposing goal-directed and motivational forces (Ritzer & Ryan 2011:
236). The present study dwelled on the systemised body of knowledge about human
behaviour, as manipulative behaviour involves thoughts from both the victim and the
perpetrator. In addition, the approach is not only about real situations as they present
themselves but it also goes into the interpretation of the situation as a whole. This
element empowered the study to understand both the real situation and individual
characters in Siswati folktales. Although the Psychoanalytic approach has been
criticized for being a non-academic theory of research, it has been credited for its
extensive contribution to folktale studies.

Chapter 4 discussed the research methods and the data collection methods. The
chapter outlined a detailed research design, including sampling methods, methods of
collecting data, as well as data analysis. The research was conducted using qualitative

220
methods of research because these methods allow for an in-depth study of a
phenomenon in the natural setting and describe, explain and interpret information.
Leedy and Ormrod (2005:143) assert that conducting research is content bound, and
is based on flexible guidelines and a personal point of view. The reason for selecting
the qualitative method is that it aims at describing, explaining and interpreting
information in order to explore (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005:143) and qualitative data relies
on data analysed numerically. Selecting qualitative methods helped in collecting the
appropriate data to answer the research questions. Books on folktales were selected
and certain folktales were sampled as a population. A sample of folktales was
purposefully sampled since the researcher believes that folktales contain useful data
to provide answers to the research questions. The chapter also provided information
on ethical issues whereby the researcher applied for ethical clearance from the
university before collecting data.

Chapter 5 presented and analysed the data collected from the selected Siswati
folktales. The aim of analysing the data was to investigate the presence of
manipulative behaviour in Siswati folktales. Data were analysed using Neuman’s
(2000) method of Analytic Comparison, where the method of Agreement and the
method of Difference were used to detect if there are similarities and/ or differences in
the causal factors, strategies, and outcomes of manipulative behaviour in Siswati
folktales. Data were discussed using different themes that were identified from the
folktales. It was evident that some themes may have common causal factors, but a
different manipulative strategy and outcome. The analytic comparison assisted in
identifying these themes with the method of agreement and the method of difference.
Since these themes were teased from the selected Siswati folktales, some folktales
had similar themes that resulted in the repetition of folktales in the process of analysis.

Chapter 6 discussed the findings of the data presented and analysed in chapter 5. The
chapter addressed the research problem and provided answers to the research
questions posed in chapter 1. Data were categorised into themes that were drawn from
the analysis in chapter 5. The following themes, together with their sub-themes, were
identified and discussed:

221
 COMMON CAUSES OF MANIPULATION IN FOLKTALES
 Power abuse and power hunger
 Jealousy as some causal factor
 Fame and recognition
 Bribery and other false promises
 VICTIMS’ ACTIONS THAT PROMOTE MANIPULATION
 Ignorance of victim
 Making impulsive decisions
 Being too submissive can lead to self-vulnerability and to manipulation
 Disobedience is a causal factor for manipulation
 Impatience as the causal factor for manipulation
 Accepting invitations without asking for genuine reasons
 THE VICTIMS OF MANIPULATION IN FOLK NARRATIVE
 Leaders and followers
 Servants/helpers and masters
 The defenceless, helpless, and old as prospective targets of manipulation
 Character who displays stupidity
 Victims who do not listen or take heed of warnings
 PERPETRATORS OF MANIPULATION IN FOLKTALES
 Those in power
 The knowledgeable
 The intelligent
 STRATEGIES USED BY THE PERPETRATORS TO GET THE ATTENTION
THEIR OF VICTIMS
 Using trickery as a strategy to manipulate for manipulation.
 Being time conscious when taking actions
 Cruelty and bullying of the powerless and defenceless
 Perseverance as a strategy for manipulation
 Pretending to be life savers
 Assessing circumstances of the victims

222
  Capitalizing on weak points to manipulate others
 Shifting the blame
 Playing victim as a strategy to carry out manipulative acts
 SETTINGS THAT PROMOTE VULNERABILITY TO MANIPULATION
 Loneliness as a causal factor for manipulation.
 Lack of resources and basic needs
 Political constraints
 THE IMPLICATIONS OF MANIPULATIVE BEHAVIOUR
 Loss of lives
 Destruction of relationships
The causes of manipulation were discussed as noted from the analysis; it was revealed
that both the victims and manipulators breed manipulation through their own actions.
The chapter reveals that the causes of manipulation differ depending on other factors
that play a role in creating a platform for manipulative behaviour. The profile of would-
be victims of manipulation was discussed; it was found that victims of manipulative
acts can come from different backgrounds, and that at times these people are not even
aware that they have been targeted. Methods of manipulation and the strategies and
tools used to manipulate others were discussed, as awareness can help would-be
victims to counteract manipulative tendencies.

Chapter 7 provided the conclusion and recommendations.

7.3 Contribution of the research to the academic field

Folklore scholars and folklorists believe that the folktale is one of the traditional means
used to educate and maintain order in a society. Scholars such as Malinowski (1926),
demonstrate how folktales contribute to the maintenance of institutions in society and
how they function in that particular society. He propounds that tales educate and
validate the norms of the society while myths express, enhance and codify beliefs, and
adds that they safeguard and enforce morality and contain practical rules for the
guidance of man (Malinowski:1926:19).

223
The current study revealed that folktales are of great relevance as a means of curbing
manipulative tendencies. It also demonstrated that, whereas most manipulators violate
the morals of a society, folktales can be a means of encouraging morality by validating
the norms of the society. The study found that folktales display manipulators as usually
escaping and continuing with repeated manipulations. The Department of and
Correctional Services can also benefit by examining the strategies used by
manipulators in Siswati folktales and using the knowledge to curb repeated
manipulations and killings. This message can be extended by running campaigns to
alert prospective victims about manipulation.

Academics can also learn from folktales about manipulators and their strategies, to
avoid manipulation in the institutional sphere, since many of them are victims of
manipulators who play the victim. Academics can also extend the use of folktales by
including folktales in their curriculum; a specific folklorist could explain the lessons
given in folktales. The Department of Health could also gain from the study, since
manipulators in folktales sometimes pretend to be sick in order to manipulate those in
authority. Folktales explaining manipulation can also be useful in other workplace
settings, since manipulation is also practised where work is unfairly divided, and
bosses manipulate their subordinates using different manipulative strategies. The
Department of Sports and Recreation can also benefit, since some manipulators use
games as a strategy to manipulate as was seen in Siswati folktales. Manipulation
tactics as revealed in Siswati folktales could also be of benefit to Banks, as high-
ranking officials may manipulate the accounts and investments of citizens for personal
financial gain, causing the bank to end up bankrupt and citizens to be ruined financially.

Traditional leaders can also gain from the study since they are the target of
manipulators who tend to manipulate a whole community, i.e. manipulators first
manipulate the leader in order to get control of the community. Parents can also benefit
from the study so as to be cautious not to leave their children with untrustworthy people
who end up harming, killing or arranging for the abduction of their children for monetary
gain. Business people could learn from this study and be cognisant of their “faithful

224
 employees” who use the trust they have earned to manipulate colleagues, to the
detriment of the company.

7.4 Limitations of the study

The most significant limitation was the scarcity of indigenous resources on the topic of
manipulation, especially in folklore. Another limitation was that the researcher avoided
conducting interviews and using questionnaires as a qualitative method of
investigation, as the study would have been too large and difficult to conduct.

7.5 Recommendations

The researcher recommends that the teaching of folktales should be revisited and
adapted in the modern context, being careful not to lose their didactic and moral
functions.

The researcher recommends that the Department of Education should consider the
incorporation of folktales into the curriculum, as folktales are effective tools for teaching
life skills and morals. However, the moral lessons, culture, and didactics entrenched
in folktales should remain unchanged. This could help revitalize folktales and preserve
the lessons transmitted from folktales.

Folktales are often seen as outdated in today’s world this can be modified and the
setting be adapted to appeal to contemporary societies. Social media platforms can
also be used to post folktales online and stimulate a discussion from the public on the
functions and lessons embedded in them. This can preserve the lessons contained in
folktales and make them popular to people of all ages.

The researcher recommends the dramatization of folktales for schools and

communities, since most adults and children today enjoy watching more than listening.
The change of setting whereby folktales are dramatized in theatre can bring a change
of attitude towards folktales.

225
The Fourth Industrial Revolution may bring about the environment in which technology
will take over from human beings. This change may affect the way we communicate
to one another, the way we work, live, and educate our children at home and schools.
In order to meet this impending challenge, it is recommended to put our folktales with
full details and the lessons they provide on line. This will also preserve them for future
generations.

Support groups could be formed, where victims of manipulation can share experiences
with other victims. In this way, victims will have an opportunity to learn from each other
regarding how they escaped from their manipulators. The researcher recommends
that community structures be formed to fight against gender-based violence, since
manipulators take advantage of women and children and manipulate them using their
defencelessness as a tool for manipulatation.

It is strongly recommended that the Department of Arts and Culture train people how
to teach folktales in a manner that appeals to the listeners. These specialists could be
equipped with skills to explain all aspects and functions of folktales, highlighting the
norms and values rooted in them. This can bring back the value of folktales to our
communities.

The researcher recommends that folktales be included in the study of drama and
dance, to revitalize the value of folktales as an indigenous heritage and as a tool to
teach.

Social media, as the most influential platform, can assist in creating awareness of
manipulative behaviour. Manipulative tendencies can be exposed on social media to
bring awareness to the community so that they do not fall prey to manipulation.
Folktales can play a very important role to teach about manipulative behaviour if
posted on social media. The broadcast media can also assist by producing educational
programmes on how to avoid or counteract manipulation.

It is recommended that leaders and managers be advised on appropriate ways to use

the power vested in them and not use these powers to manipulate their subordinates,

226
 e.g. by giving their subordinates tasks that are outside their scope of work, or asking
them to carry out official work outside official hours of work. On the other hand,
subordinates should take care not to lend themselves vulnerable to manipulation in
exchange of possible jobs or promotion.

It is recommended that all stakeholders join forces to rid social institutions of

manipulative behaviour by punishing all perpetrators of manipulative behaviour in the
workplace. Victims and would-be victims should be vigilant and report any suspicious
person or actions that border on manipulation, because silence breeds fertile ground
for continual manipulation. Victims should also ask for help from officials or people
trained to help them with their day-to-day problems.

Religious leaders and church members should also be vigilant of manipulative acts
carried out under the umbrella of religion. This happens in subtle ways, where would-
be victims are comfortable, and sometimes even help the manipulator without being
aware that they are being manipulated.

Various stakeholders should help students of all ages and students in traditional or
initiation schools to apply their newly gained knowledge better. Such schools should
be monitored by the stakeholders concerned, who should intervene where there are
signs or evidence of manipulative behaviour within the institutions.

7.6 Conclusion

This chapter summarized the entire study. The analysis has shown that like characters
in folktales, individuals in real life also carry out manipulative acts. Leaders in many
social institutions carry out manipulative acts and most victims are unaware of being
manipulated until the damage is huge and difficult to control. Manipulative strategies
used by characters in folktales are the same strategies used by individuals in
contemporary society, irrespective of the context. The researcher believes that the
recommendations given in this chapter will assist in counteracting manipulative acts in
all areas of life, and that the teaching of folktales in schools should be preserved as a
tool for teaching life skills.

227
As mentioned earlier, little research has been conducted on the topic, and the present
study did not exhaust the research topic. There are gaps in the research that need to
be filled, for instance, the use of words and phrases by characters in folktales to
manipulate others. The researcher believes that the current study will contribute to the
existing body of knowledge, especially with regards to research in Siswati folktales.

228
 REFERENCES

Abousnnouga, G. & Machin, D. (2009). Analysing the Language of War Monuments.

Visual Communication, 9 (2) pp. 131-149.

Ahuja, R. (2000). Criminology. New Delhi: Rawat Publications.

Alvesson M. (2004). Organizational Culture and Discourse. In: D Grant., C. Hardy C.

Oswick, & L.L. Putnam (eds), Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London:
Sage.

Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. (2001). The Practice of Social Research. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.

Bailey, C.A. (1994). A Guide to Field Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Pine Forge
Press.

Baker, P., Gabriel, L. C., Khosravinik, M., Krezanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak,
R. (2008). A Useful Methodological Synergy, Combining Critical Discourse
Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourse of Refugees and Asylum
Seekers in the UK Press. Discourse and Society,19 (3) pp. 273-306.

Barkho, L. (2007). Unpacking the Discursive and Social Links in BBC, CNN and Al-
Jazeera’s Middle East Reporting. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 1
(1) pp. 11-29.

Barkho, L. (2011). The Role of Internal Guidelines in Shaping News Narratives:

Ethnographic Insights into the Discursive Rhetoric of Middle East Reporting by
the BBC and Al-Jazeera. English, Critical Discourse Studies, 8 (4) pp. 297-309.

Bascom, W. (1965). The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives. The Journal of

American Folklore, 78 (307) pp. 3-20.

229
Bascom, W. (1975). African Dilemma Tales. World Anthropology Series. Chicago:
Mouton Publishers.

Bateman, J. A., Delin, J. & Henschel, R. (2004). Multimodality and Empiricism:

Preparing for a Corpus Based Approach to the Study of Multimodal Meaning-
Making. In: E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher, (eds), Perspective on
Multimodality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 65-87.

Bell, A. & Garrett, P. (eds) (1998). Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Berger, P. L. & Luckman, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York:
Doubleday.

Bhiya, O. A. (1993). Cosi Cosi Iyaphela. Pretoria: Kagiso Education.

Blass, R. (2005). Manipulation in the Speeches and Writings of Hitler and the
NSDAP: From a Relevance Theoretic Point of View. In: L. De Saussure, & P.J.
Schulz (eds), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse,
Language, and Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 169-190.

Blight, J.G. (1981). Must Psychoanalysis Retreat to Hermeneutics? Psychoanalytic

Theory in the Light of Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology. Psychoanalysis &
Contemporary Thought, 4(2):147.

Blommaert, J. & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 29 pp. 447–466.

Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (2007). The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An

Introduction. London: Hodder Arnold.

Borg, W.R, Gall, J.P. & Gall, M.D. (1993). Applying Educational Research: A
Practical Guide. 3rd edition. New York: Longman.

230
Boswell, G.W. & Reaver, J.R. (1962). Fundamentals of Folk Literature. Oosterhout:
Anthropological Publications.

Bourdieu, P. (1982) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London:

Routledge.
Bowling, C.R. (2011). The New Order of the Ages: A Metaphysical Blue Print of Reality
an Expose on Powerful Repitation. Bloomington: Universe Publishers.

Bradberry, T. (2019). Emotional Intelligence. Pune India: My Mirrow Publishing House.

Brenner, C. (1980). Metapsychology and Psychoanalytic Theory. The Psychoanalytic

Quarterly, 49:2, pp. 189-214.

Brunvand, J.H. (1986). The Study of American Folklore. London: Penguin.

Burns, N. & Grove, S. K. (2005). The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct,

Critique and Utilization. London: Sage Publications.

Cavell, M. (1998). Triangulation, One’s Own Mind and Objectivity. International

Journal of Psychoanalysis. 79 (3) pp. 449-67.

Chilton, P. (2005). Manipulation, Memes and Metaphors: The Case of MeinKampf.

In: L. De Saussure, & P.J. Schulz (eds), Manipulation and Ideologies in the
Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, and Mind. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins’. pp. 5-43.

Chilton, P. (2005b). Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules Blends and Critical
Instincts. In: R. Wodak & P. Chilton (eds), A New Agenda in Critical Discourse
Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 19-51.

Chilton, P., Tian., H. & Wodak, R. (2010). Reflections on Discourse and Critique in
China and the West. Journal of Language and Politics. 9 (4) pp. 489-507.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Understanding Power: In P, Mitchell and J Schoeffel(eds)
New York: The New York Press, pp94-95.

231
Chopra, D. (2004). The Book of Secrets: Unlocking the Hidden Dimensions of your
Life. New York: Harmony.

Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking

Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Cockroft, R. & Cockroft, S. (2005). Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Collins, R. (1984). Media, Culture and Society. London: Sage.

Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research: Theory Methods and Techniques. London:

Sage.

Craib, I. (1989). Psychoanalysis and Theory. Amherst MA: University of

Massachusetts Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.

Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed Method Research: Introduction and Application. In:

Cizek, T. (ed.), Handbook of Educational Policy. Cambridge MA: Academic
Press. pp. 455-472.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among

Five Approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Dahl, S. (2000). Cultural Values in Beer Commercials in the UK, The Netherlands
and Germany. Paper presented at the Research Day, Intercultural Discourse
Group, University of Luton, UK, July 2000. Available online at http://dahl.at/

Dawkins, R.M. (1951). The Meaning of Folktales. Journal of Folklore. 62 (49) pp.
417-429.

232
Dlamini, P.A. (2000). The Teaching of Oral Literature in Swazi Secondary Schools: A
Critique. Master’s Thesis, University of Cape Town. Available online at
http://hdl.handle.net/11427/10347

Dundes, A. (1980). Interpretation of Folklore. Bloomington IA: Indiana University

Press.

Durkheim, E. 1980. The Division of Labour in Society. London. Macmillan.

Eagleton, T. (1976). Marxism and Literary Criticism. London: Methuen.

Edelson, M. (1984). Language and Interpretation in Psychoanalysis. Chicago IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Edelson, M. (1990). Psychoanalysis: A Theory in Crisis. Chicago IL: University of

Chicago press.

Fairclough, N (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language.

London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language.

London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in Transdisciplinary Research. In:

R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (eds), A New Agenda in Critical Discourse Analysis.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 53-70.

Fairclough, N. (2009). A Dialectical–Relational Approach to Critical Discourse

Analysis. In: R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 162-186.

233
Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J. & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis. In: T.A.
van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London:
Sage. pp. 357-378.

Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis. In: T.A van Dijk (ed.),
Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2: Discourse as Social
Interaction. London: Sage. pp. 258-284.

Farrell, B. A. (1981). The Standing of Psychoanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Finnegan, R. (1970). Oral Literature in Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Forceville, C. (1999). Educating the Eye? Kress and Van Leeuwen’s Reading
Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (1996). Language and Literature, 8 (2)
pp. 163-78.

Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic Criticism. London: Oxford University Press.

Freud, S. (1926). Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. In: J. Strachey, & A. Freud
(eds), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund
Freud. London: The Hogarth Press. pp. 77-175.

Freud, S. (1929). Neurosis and Psychosis. The Psychoanalytic Review, 16 (203) pp.
345-361.

Freud, S. (1949). An Outline of Psychoanalysis: New York: Norton.

Freud, S. (1969). Outline of Psychoanalysis, Trans. J Strachey. New York: Norton
Publishing.

Freud, S. (1970). An Outline of Psychoanalysis. (Trans. J Strachey) New York:

Norton.

Frosh, S. (2010). Psychoanalysis Outside the Clinic: Interventions in Psychosocial

Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

234
Fulcher, R. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Longman.

Gabbard, G.O. (1997). A Reconsideration of Objectivity in The Analyst. International

Journal of Psychoanalysis, 78(1) pp.15-26.

Gabbard, G.O. (1997). A Reconsideration of Objectivity in The Analyst. International

Journal of Psychoanalysis, 78 (1) pp. 15-26.

Gavhi, G.T. 1990. Ngano dza vha kale. Pietermaritzburg: Centaur Publications.

Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and

Application. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gay, P. (1989). Sigmund Freud: A brief life. In: J. Strachey (ed.), An Outline of
Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton. pp. vii-xx.

Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Gee, P. & Handford, M. (eds) (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse

Analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.

Gellner, E. (1985). Psychoanalytic Movement: The Cunning of Unreason. London:

Sage Publication.

Gellner, E.P. (1985). The Psycho Analytic Movement: London: Sage Publication.

Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. 3rd edition. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

Gidley, B. (2004). Doing Historical and Archival Research. In: C. Seal (ed.),
Researching Society and Culture. London: Sage. pp. 249-264.

Gordon, W. (1999). Good Thinking: A Guide to Qualitative Research. Henley-on-

Thames: Admap.

Graziano, A.M. & Raulin, M.L. (2004). Research Methods: A Process of Enquiry.
Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon.

235
Grünbaum, A. (1984). Some Reflections on Responses to Adolf Grünbaum’s critique
of the Empirical Foundations of Psychoanalysis. In: M. Edelson (ed.)
Psychoanalysis: A Theory in Crisis. pp 309-318.

Grünbaum, A. (1984). Some Reflections on Responses to Adolf Grünbaum’s Critique

of the Empirical Foundations of Psychoanalysis. In: M. Edelson (ed.),
Psychoanalysis: A theory in crisis. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. pp.
309-318.

Grünbaum. A. (1986). Précis of The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical

Critique. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, v 9 (1), pp. 217-284.

Guma, S.M. (1967). Form, Content and Technique of Traditional Literature in

Southern Sotho. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Haig, E. (2001). A Study of the Application of Critical Discourse Analysis to Eco

Linguistics and the Teaching of Eco-literacy. Studies in Language and Culture,
22 (2) pp. 205-226.

Hammersley, M. (1996). On The Foundation of Critical Discourse Analysis.

Language and Communication, 17 (3) pp. 327-348.

Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research
Imagination. London: Sage.

Hesse-Biber, S.N. Leavy, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Holt, R. R. (1985). The current status of psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalytic

Psychology, 2(4), pp. 289–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.2.4.289

Holzman, P. S. (1985). Psychoanalysis: Is the Therapy Destroying the Science?

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 33(4), pp. 725–770.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000306518503300401

236
Janks, H. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool. Discourse Studies
in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18 (3) pp. 329-342.

Jegede, O.J.A. (1994). A Concise Handbook of Research Methods. Ibadan: Pope

Rising Press.

Jeggle, U. (2003). A Lost Track: On the Unconscious in Folklore. Journal of Folklore

Research, 40 (1) pp. 32-69.

Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, Literacy and Learning: A Multimodal Approach.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Johnson, B & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative

and Mixed Approaches. Boston MA: Pearson.

Jones, Peter. (2007). Why There Is No Such Thing as “Critical Discourse Analysis”.
Language & Communication, 27 (1) pp. 337-368.

Kabaji, E.S. (2005). The Construction of Gender Through the Narrative Process of
the African Folktale: A Case Study of the Maragoli Folktale. Doctoral thesis,
University of South Africa, Pretoria. Available at
http://hdl.handle.net/10500/1798

Kammeyer, K.C., Ritzer, G. & Yetman, R. (1992). Sociology: Experiencing Changing

Societies. 5th edition. Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kast, A. (2010). Terms in Context: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Terminology of

the European Union’s Development Cooperation Policy with the African,
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States. (PhD Abstract, University of Vienna,
Austria) The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17 (2) pp.
303-306.

Kellehear, A. (1993). The Unobtrusive Researcher: A Guide to Methods. Crow’s Nest

NSW: Allen & Unwin.

237
Kirk, J. & Miller, M.L (1968). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Koller, V. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Cognition: Evidence from
Media Discourse. Discourse and Society, 16 (2) pp. 199-224.

Koller, V. (2008). Lesbian Discourse: Images of a Community. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kress, E. & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual
Design. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kristeva, J. (1983). Freud and Love: Treatment and its Discontents. In: Moi, T. (ed.),
The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 238-271.

Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 2nd

edition. London: Sage.

Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. 3rd

edition. London: Sage.

Lang, G. & Heiss, G. (1975). A Practical Research Method. 3rd edition. Lanham MA:
University Press of America.

Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design. 8th
edition. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (1989). Practical Research: Planning and Design. Upper
Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Practical Research: Planning and Design.
Mernhill Merrill: Pearson Prentice Hall.

LeGreco, M. (2014). Discourse analysis. In: J. Mills, & M. Birks (eds), Qualitative
methodology: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. pp. 67-87.

Lestrade, G.P. 1942. Some Venḓa Folktales. Alice: The Lovedale Press.

238
Locke, T. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Cromwell Press.

Lubambo, R. J. (2015). The Role Played by Siswati Folktales in Building the

Character of Boys: A Functionalist Approach. Master’s thesis, University of
South Africa, Pretoria.

Luke, A. (1996). Text and Discourse Analysis. American Educational Research

Association. 21 pp. 2-17.

Luthi, M. (1986). The European Folktale: Form and Nature. Bloomington IA: Indiana
University Press

Machin, D. & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.

Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Arnold.

Maingueneau, D. & O’ Regan, J.P. (2006). Is Critical Discourse Analysis Critical?

And This Risky Order of Discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 3 (2) pp. 229-
235.

Makgamatha, P.M. (1987). Characteristics of the Northern Sotho Folktales: Their

Form and Structure. Master’s thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Malan, J.S. (1985). Swazi Culture. Pretoria: African Institute of South Africa.

Malindzisa, G. (1988). Sekuhlwile. Pietermaritzburg: Travis Publishers.

Malinowski, B. (1926). Myth in Primitive Psychology. London: Kegan Paul.

Marivate, C.T.D. (1973). Tsonga Folktales: Form, Content and Delivery. Master’s
thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Masuku, N. (2005). Perceived Oppression of Woman in Zulu Folklore: A Feminist

Critique. Doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Maumela, B.H. (1990). Ngano dzashu na maambele a Tshivenda. Sandton:

Heinemann.

239
Maumela, T.N. 1987. Dzingano na Dzithai dza Tshivenḓa. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Mavuso, M.P. & Makhanya. C.N. (1994). Ematfundvuluka. Pretoria: Actua Press.

Mavuso, M.P. (1993). Luveve. Alberton: Lectio Publishers.

Mayr, A. & Machin, D. (2012). The Language of Crime and Deviance: An Introduction
to Critical Linguistic Analysis in Media and Popular Culture. London:
Continuum.

McGregor, L.T. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis: A Primer. Kappa Omicron Nu

Forum 15 (1)

McGregor, S. (2003). Critical Science: A Primer. Kappa Omicron Nu Working Paper

Series. Available at: http://www.kon.org/cfp/critical_science_primer.pdf
Accessed on 22/10/2019

McGregor, S.L.T. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: A Primer. Kappa Omicron Nu

Forum, 15 (1).

McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence-Based

Inquiry. 6th edition. Boston MA: Pearson.

McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education: Evidence-Based

Inquiry. 7th edition. Boston MA: Pearson.

Medawar, P.B. (1975). Victims of Psychiatry. New York: Rev Books.

Merton, K. 1950. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Mill, J. (1998). Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks CA:

Sage.

Mills, J. & Birks, M. (eds) (2014). Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide.

Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

240
Mitchell, S.A. & Aron, L. (1999). Relational Psychoanalysis: The Emergence of a
Tradition. Abingdon: Routledge.

Mkhatshwa, M., Masoka, N.E. Maseko, N. F. & Mazibuko, S.S. (2015). Tibuya
Emphandzeni. Midrand: Macmillan Education South Africa.

Moephuli, I.M. (1979). Structure and Character in Cyclic Folktales of Southern Sotho.
Master’s thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Mofokeng, S.M. (1951). A Study of Folktales in Sotho. Master’s thesis, University of

the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Mogashoa, T. (2014). Understanding Critical Discourse: An Analysis in Qualitative

Research, International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education,
1 (7) pp. 104-113.

Moore, H. (2001). Psychoanalysis as a Reflection of Reality. Journal of Feminist

Cultural Studies, 9 (1) pp. 27-65.

Morgan, A. (2010). Discourse Analysis: An Overview for the Neophyte Researcher.

Journal of Health and Social Core Improvement, 1 (1) pp. 1-7.

Mota, M.T. (2009). The Role of Folktales in Building Personality: The Case of the
Lunda-Cokwe People of Angola. Master’s thesis, University of South Africa,
Pretoria.

Ncongwane, J. J. & Ncongwane, J.S. (1992). Ematekelo Ayitolo. Pietermaritzburg:

Shuter & Shooter.

Ndlela, B.M.B. & Magagula, S. M. (1994). Kwesukasukela. Manzini: Macmillan

Boleswa.

Neuman, W.L (1997). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. 3rd edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

241
Neuman, W.L. (1998). Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Toronto: Pearson.

Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. 4th edition. Boston MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Neuman, W.L. (2006). Social Research Methods; Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. 6th edition. London: Pearson.

Nkonki, G. (1968). The Traditional Prose Literature of the Ngqika. MA thesis,

University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Nyaungwa, O. (2008). Folktale Influence on the Shona Novel. MA thesis, University

of South Africa, Pretoria.

O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

O’Halloran, K.L. (2009). Multimodal Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective.

New York: Continuum.

Ojwang, H.J. (1994). Oral Narrative as Discourse. In: A. Bukenya, W.M. Kariba & O.
Okombo (eds), Understanding Oral Literature. Nairobi: Nairobi University Press.

Oliver, P.J., Richard, W.R. & Lawrence, A.P. (2010). Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research. 3rd edition. London. The Guilford Press.

Olrik, A. (1992). Principles for Oral Literature Research. Bloomington IA: Indiana
University Press.

Olson, B. (2007). Quantitative versus Qualitative Research: The Wrong Question.

Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.

242
Oosthuizen, M. (1977). The Structure of the Zulu Folktale, With Special Reference to
the Stuart Collection. Master’s Thesis, University of Natal, Durban.

Orlik, A. (1992). Principles for Oral Narrative Research. Indiana: Indiana University
Press.

Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd edition.

Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (1994). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Eethods: Intergrating

Theory and Methods. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (2000). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2004). The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental
Trickery and Manipulation. Washington DC: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy.

Abingdon: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Polanyi, M. (1985). The telling of American Story: A Structural and Cultural Analysis
of Conversational Storytelling. Norwood NJ: Albex.

Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T. (2004). Nursing Research: Principles and Methods.
Philadelphia PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T. (2006). Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence
for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Popper, K. (1986). Predicting Overt Behaviour Versus Predicting Hidden States.

Behavioural and Brain Science, 9 pp. 254-255.

243
Pottow, C.L. (1992). Special Structures Relating to the Family in Zulu Folktales.
Master’s thesis, University of Natal, Durban.

Prior, L. (2003). Using Documents in Social Research. London: Sage.

Propp, V.Y. (1968). Morphology of the Folktale. 2nd edition, revised. Austin TX:
University of Texas Press.

Ramagoshi, R.M. Maree, J.G, Alexander, D. & Molepo, M.M. (2007). Child abuse in
Setswana folktales. Early Child Development and Care, 177 (4) pp. 433-448.

Rananga, N.C. (1997). The Structural Elements of Venda Folktales: The Transcriber
Versus the Narrator. Master’s Thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Reisigl, M. & Wodak. R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism

and Antisemitism. Abingdon: Routledge.

Richardson, J.E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical

Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (eds) (2005). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social
Sciences Students and Researchers. London: Sage.

Rittzer, G. & Ryan, J.M. (eds). (2011) The Concise Encyclopaedia of Sociology.
Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ritzer, G. (ed.) (2004). Encyclopaedia of Social Theories. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Rogers, R., Malamcharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hiujd, O & Joseph, G. (2005).
Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of Literature. Thousand
Oaks CA: Sage.

Russell, B.H. (2013). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approach. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

244
Saunders, M. Lewis, P. & Thanhill. A. (2003). Research Methods for Business
Students: London: Pintmen Publishing Imprint.

Scheub, H. (1975). The Xhosa Ntsomi. Oxford Library of African Literature. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Seal, C. (2004). Researching Society and Culture. 2nd edition. London: Sage.

Seldan, R.E. & Widdowson, P. (1997). A Reader’s’ Guide to Contemporary Literary

Theory. 4th edition. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. & Cook, S.W. (1965). Research Methods in
Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Shongwe, M. (1992). Vutsela Umlilo. Cape Town: Maskew Miller & Longman.

Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Thousand

Oaks CA: Sage.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text
and Interaction. 3rd edition. London: Sage.

Simelane, S.Z., & Thwala, J.J. (1991). Umkhunsu. Pretoria: Juta.

Simpson, P. & Mayr, A. (2010). Language and Power: A Resource Book for
Students. London: Routledge.

Spencer, M. (1982). Foundations of Modern Sociology. Englewood Cliffs NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Spezzano, C. (1993). A Relational Model of Inquiry and Truth: The Place of

Psychoanalysis in Human Conversation. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 3 (2) pp.
177-208.

245
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA). In: A. Ryan & A. Wray (eds), Evolving Models of Language:
Papers from the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied
Linguistics Held at the University of Wales, Swansea, September 1996 (British
Studies in Applied Linguistics, 12). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 100-116.

Taylor, G.R. (ed.) (2005). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in

Research. 2nd editon. Lanham MA: University Press of America.

Tenorio, E. H. (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis: An Overview. Nordic Journal, 10

(1) pp. 183-210.

Thompson, H. W. (1964). Body, Boots, and Britches: Folktales, Ballads and Speech
from Country New York. Syracuse NY: Syracuse University Press.

Thwala, J.J (1992). Umkhunsu. Pretoria: Actua Press.

Thwala, J.J. (1995). Tinkhobe. Alberton: Lectio Publishers.

Toolan, M. (1997). What is Critical Discourse Analysis and Why are People Saying
Such Terrible Things About it? Language and Literature, 6 (2) pp. 83-102.

Tuckman, B.W. (1999). Conducting Educational Research. 5th edition. Orlando FL:
Harcourt Brace College.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1977). Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1985). The Role of Discourse Analysis in Society. In: T.A. van Dijk
(ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. Vol. 4. pp. 1-
8

Van Dijk, T.A. (1993a). Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.

246
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993b). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society,
4 (2) 249-283.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage

Van Dijk, T.A. (1998b). Discourse Studies: A multidisciplinary Introduction. California:
Sage Publication.

Van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam:

University of Amsterdam

Van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach.

Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) (1997). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. 2

vols. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) (2011). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. 2nd
edition, in one vol. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Van Eemeren, F. (2005). Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century:

Discourse, Language and Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. p. ix.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2000). Introducing Social Semiotics. Abingdon: Routledge.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Critical Discourse Analysis. In: K. Brown (ed.),

Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Vol 3. pp.
290-94.

Van Straten, C.A. (1996). The Fairy Tale as Paradigm of Inner Transformation: A
Comparative Study of Southern African and European Tales. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Verschueren, J. (1985). Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for

Empirical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

247
Van Walbeek, C. (2005). The Iconomic of Tobacco Control in South Africa. Cape
Town: University of Cape Town.
Villines, C. (2013). Are You Being Manipulated? Keys to Hidden aggression. NewYork:
Longman

Wagele, E. & Stabb, I. (2010). The Career Within You: How to Find a Perfect Job for
Your Personality. New York: HarperCollins.

Wales, K. (1989). A Dictionary of Stylistics. London: Longman.

Welman, J. & Kruger, S. (2001). Research Methodology. Cape Town: Oxford

University Press.

Westen, D. & Gabbard, G.O. (2008). Psychoanalytic Approaches to Personality. In:

O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory
and Research. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 61–113.

Widdowson, H.G. (1995). Discourse Analysis: A Critical View. Language and

Literature, 4 (4) pp. 157-172.

Widdowson. H.G. (1998). The Theory and Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis:
Applied Linguistics, 19 (1) pp. 136-151.
Wodak, R. & Fairclough, N. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In: T. A Van Dijk
(ed). Discourse as a Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications. pp 258-284.

Wodak, R. & Clinton, P. (2005). A New Agenda in Discourse Analysis: Theory,

Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory
and Methodology. In: R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds), Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis. 2nd edition. London: Sage. pp. 1-33.

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2009). The Discourse Historical Approach. In: R. Wodak &
M. Meyer (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 87-
121.

248
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (eds) (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd
edition. London: Sage. p. 200.

Wodak, R. (2005). Understanding and Explaining Social Change: ‘Déjà-vu’

Experiences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15 (2) pp. 240-243.

Wodak, R. (2009). Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.

Wood, L.A. and Kroeger, R.O. (2000). Doing Discourse Analysis: Method of Studying
in Talk and Text. London: Sage.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2010). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Sage Publications

NEW’SPAPER ARTICLES.

The Village News (2019) ‘Take a stand and unite against bullying’, 9 May 2019.
Cunningham, J. (2019). ‘Risk Manipulation Through Social Media’ Be Somebody
Medium com, 29 July, 2019
Dlamini, P. (2019) ‘Empty Promises, Unmotivated Youth Contributed to Poor Voters
Turn Out, City Press, 17 May,2019.
Dlamini, N. (2016), ‘Domestic Worker Steals Half a Million Cash from Employer’.
Kempton Express, 30 September 2016.
Dodgson, L. (2017). ‘Manipulative People Hook their Victims with a Tactic Called “Love
Bombmbing,’ Business Insider, 01 August 2017.
Ginindza, B. (2019) ‘We Blame the Government for Jackob’s Death’ Daily Sun,01
February 2019.
Gordon, S. (2019) ‘Signs of Controllong Friend’. (2019) Very Well Family, 07
December, 2019.
Gumede, W. (2017), ‘Leaders Abuse Gorvenance to Controll Citizens’. Mail and
Guardian, 20, November 2017.

249
Jordan, N. (2018) ‘Zuma Abused his Power as President’. Sunday Times,6 November
2018.
Kgosana, C. and Hunter, Q. (2018), ‘VBS Looting: NC Got R2M’. SundayTimes, 28
October, 2018.
Mabuza, E. (2018) ‘Man to Appear in Court for Kidnapping and Trafficking of a
Person for Sexual Purposes’. Sunday Times, 03 June, 2018.
Masipa, N. (2015). ‘Jealous Man Boiled my Head’, Daily Sun, 7 August, 2015.
Masipa, N. (2019). ‘Man Tries to Buy Victim’s Silence’, Daily Sun, 24 April, 2019.
Mehlwane, L. (2011). ‘Scammers Rob Madala of R55K!’ Daily Sun, 6 September
2016.
Moeng, S. (2017). ‘Porvety, Low Levels of Education, Lack of Information Are All
Enemies of Democracy’. City Press,11January, 2017.
Naki, E. (2019). ‘Malema’s Plan to Divide ANC Succeeds’ The Citizen,26 July, 2019.

Nkambule, L. (2018) ‘Some Beggars Make R1200’. Daily Sun,28 March, 2018.

Pilling, D. and Cotterill, J.(2017) ‘Jacob Zuma, The Guptas and The Selling of South

Africa’. Financial Times, 30 November, 2017.

Onishi, N. & Gebrekidan, S. (2018). ‘Hitman and Power: South Africa’s Leaders are
Killing one Another. The New York Times. 30 September, 2018.

Seleke, N. ’4 More Arrested for Killing, burning body of an elderly woman who was
Accused of Witchcraft in Sterkspruit in the Eastern Cape’. News 24,18 March,
2019.
Selepe, L. (2019), ‘Pastor, Nephew Burnt by Mob after Sangoma 'Falsely' Accuse them
of Double Murder’, The Star, 31 May, 2019.
Staff, S.C. (2019), ‘Power Hungry Boss? Why Every One Suffers when Leaders
Misbehave’, Business News Dayly Editor, 11 March, 2019.

250
 APPENDIX: FULL VERSIONS OF FOLKTALES

Folktale 1. Ncedze (The Fantail) Thwala: 1995:22

Once upon a time the birds wanted to have their own king. They therefore decided to
hold a big meeting to discuss this matter. All the birds agreed that they indeed needed
a king.

Fantail was heard saying, “It does not matter that my body structure looks so small, I
want the kingship.” Fantail had once dreamt of being king of the birds.

Fantail knew some birds did not like him. He also knew that if only he can conquer
them he would succeed. A certain bird was heard saying, “My view is that Ostrich is
the one that can be our king because he is so big and strong.” Another one said, I
think Hawk should be our king because he is so strong.” Another one said, “I think our
king should be Eagle because he can fly very far into the sky.” And another one said,
“I think Peacock must be our king because he is so handsome.” Another one came up
and said, “I suggest that Owl be our king because he has big eyes and therefore he
will see well.”

Fantail was very disappointed that other birds were being commended but not him. He
thought that someone might say something about him but shame, poor Fantail it did
not go according to what he thought. He made his own comments about all the birds
that had been recommended and said, “I do not think that the nation can be led by
Ostrich because Ostrich cannot fly high. I am not even going to talk about Hawk
because he is such a terrible bird in a way that was never seen before. The nation
does not want to be led by Eagle because he is a dirty bird and has a terrible smell.
Peacock has a terrible voice. As for the Owl, I really do not want to say anything about
him, he is scared of light. How can a nation be led by a king that loves darkness?”

The birds then agreed that the bird that flies the highest will be the one to be elected
king. When the day for test flying came every bird was ready. Eagle flew three days

251
up into heavens. All the other birds failed and ended up sitting down. When Eagle was
up, up in the sky he shouted, “I am the king of the birds!” Just then he heard a noise
above him. It was Fantail! I am king of the birds because I have beaten you,” he
boasted. All along he has been holding on to Eagle’s wings!

Eagle was furious. He decided to fly up into the sky for five days this time to prove to
everybody that he was the real king of the birds. But once again Fantail held onto his
wings without him realising. After five days he was exhausted but satisfied that he had
proven his point. “I am king of the birds, and now I will fly down and rest.” Just then
Fantail let go of Eagle’s wings and started his own flight even further up into the sky,
shouting triumphantly that he was the king.

As soon as Eagle landed he told the other birds what happened. Some of the birds
testified that they indeed saw Fantail holding onto Eagles’ big strong wings.

All the birds were very angry. Eagle was also still upset for being tricked. The birds
went out looking for Fantail. Fantail saw them as he was flying back to earth. When he
realised that they were looking for him and probably wanted to kill him he flew away
looking for somewhere to hide. The birds asked Owl to search for Fantail because he
has the biggest eyes. At this stage it was very hot however - given that it was mid-day
- so instead of looking for Fantail Owl unfortunately fell fast asleep. Fantail sneaked
out from his hiding place and flew to the top of a very tall tree.

The birds – not knowing that Owl was asleep - came in their numbers to see if Owl had
caught the terrible Fantail. Then they heard Fantail’s voice up high in the tree saying
clearly in an authoritative voice, “I am the king of the birds and no one should fight with
me over it!” The end.

Folktale 2. Sitsa imphungutje (Jackal the enemy) Mavuso, M.P. 1993

Once upon a time Cock and Cat used to be best of friends. They lived together in their
grass shack. Cock used to be the one who remains at home doing all the house chores.
While Cock stayed at home Cat would go out and hunt for food. He hunted for birds
and rats and would then bring home some maize and grains for his friend.

252
Each time Cat went out hunting he would give Cock a strong warning that he should
not open the door for anyone who knocks on the door. No matter what happens he
should not open the door. Cock listened to the warning his friend gave him. He always
stayed inside the shack.

It so happened one day that Jackal came along. Jackal had heard Cat Warning Cock
several times before. She said, in a cool smooth voice, “Open the door wonderful
Cock.” Cock replied, “No, no, no! Cat said I should not open this door to anyone.”
Jackal started nagging and knocking on the door endlessly. Cock got tired of this
nagging and opened the door. Jackal came in walking on tip-toes. She then jumped
and grabbed Cock and carried him in her mouth away towards the caves where she
lived. When Cat walked home from hunting he heard Cock’s cries.

Cat listened and followed the cries of Cock. He ran after Jackal. When he caught up
with her he hit her hard on the back of her head. Jackal fell down and Cock dropped
from her mouth. That is how he was able to escape. Cat and Cock went back to their
home. The next day Cat warned Cock again and said, “You must listen to me when I
say do not open this door to anyone.” Cock assured Cat that he will not open the door
again. Cat went away as usual. A short while after Cat had left Jackal once again
nagged at the door, “Please open the door for me wonderful Cock!” Cock replied, “Oh
no, I am sorry I will not open the door again. I realised the mistake I made yesterday.”
Jackal persisted, asking Cock to open for her. Cock, with his small brain ended up
opening the door. Jackal did not waste any time, she grabbed Cock and once again
carried him in her mouth. She took him up into the caves in the mountain where she
stayed. Cat was busy harvesting wheat when he heard Cock crying and once again
he rushed to rescue Cock. Unfortunately, Jackal disappeared into the cave before the
Cat could catch up with her. Cat could not help his friend. This caused him so much
heart ache and it occurred to him that if his friend dies he will be very lonely. He sat
down and cried bitterly. “Crying is of no use; it will not bring back my friend. I better
stop crying,” Cat said to himself.

253
Cat became creative. He made a musical instrument using some reeds. He then took
his musical instrument and went to the cave where Jackal lived. When he got there he
placed a sack at the mouth of the cave and started playing his musical instrument. He
watched for anyone to come out of the cave. The music sounded beautiful even far
deep into the cave where Jackal was.

Jackal’s eldest daughter asked her mother if she could go outside to see who was
playing this wonderful music. Her mother allowed her to go. When she came out of the
cave she fell straight into the sack. One by one all of Jackal’s children ended up in the
sack because they all asked to go outside. “Oh, I wonder where these children are
because the water is boiling now and the porridge is just about ready. All that is left
now is to kill this Cock, pluck it and then fry it. Let me just go and see where my children
are,” said Jackal.

So off she went to look for her children and, just like her children, she fell into the sack.
Cat was heard saying, “You too will go into my sack, your terrible trickster.” Cat tied
the mouth of the sack tight. He then went into the cave where Jackal lived. He saw the
boiling water and the porridge and also Cock who was luckily still alive.

With so much happiness he said, “Come my friend let us go.” He untied Cock’s legs.
Cock thanked his friend from the bottom of his heart. He learnt a lesson that day, to
always listen to instructions. They went back to their home where they comfortably
lived without fear. Cock continued staying home while Cat went out to hunt. The end.

Folktale 3. Lohheyane (The Hawk) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55

Once upon a time there was a hawk; a bird slightly bigger than other birds. It had long
sharp claws and it was brown in colour. It is said that this bird used to live together with
other big birds in a certain forest. The country where these birds lived was ravaged by
drought.

It so happened one day that Hawk had to fly to a far, far away place to look for food.
She flew across the river early in the morning. Before she left, she requested the

254
chickens to please look after her eggs and keep them safe. The chickens agreed to
look after Hawk’s eggs until she came back from her trip.

The morning of Hawk’s departure the chickens could not go out and search for food
as usual because they had to look after Hawk’s eggs. The chickens hoped that Hawk
would come back with food for them. The chickens waited, and waited for Hawk to
return but all in vain. At sunset she was still not back. The chickens continued to wait
as there was nothing they could do to hasten Hawk’s return.

It is said that they even stretched their necks looking in the direction Hawk
disappeared, hoping to see her return. They then decided to go and look for her. They
walked a long distance in the direction that she disappeared. On their way they came
across Flicker Stock, so they called out to him:

“Flicker Stock! Flicker Stock! Flicker Stock!

You who are reddish and looking like dust

You who stay in the forests! Yes,

You who stay in the forests!

Help us find Hawk.”

Flicker Stock told them that he had not seen Hawk. The chickens were heartbroken
when they got such response. Still they kept their eyes fixed on the direction Hawk
flew and disappeared into. They continued with their journey. They came across
Fantail and asked:

“Fantail! Fantail!

Small grey bird,

Help us find Hawk.”

255
Fantail told them that he had not seen Hawk. The chickens were once again
disappointed and by now they were extremely hungry. They slowly went back home.
When they arrived in the forest they found that all of Hawk’s eggs had been eaten by
a python. While they were still stunned by this a man came along, caught them and
took them to his home to rear them.

Two days later Hawk came back and couldn’t find her eggs or the chickens. She looked
all over the place. Finally, she found the chicken at the man’s home. She said to them,
“You were my relatives but now you are my enemies, and therefore from now onwards
I will snatch away your chicks and eat them.” The end.

Folktale 4. Tinkhomo letimbili (Two Cows) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:55

Once upon a time there were two cows that lived a big forest. One was vicious and the
other one was kind. These cows had big problems. As a result, they could not attend
the meeting where all the animals were going to elect new a king. In that meeting the
Lion was elected as king of the animals.

“What are we going to say to the king about our absence at the meeting when we meet
with him?” the kind cow asked. She was asking because she was felt bad for not
attending the meeting. “We have our reasons why we did not attend the meeting. We
are not supposed to be punished because of that, everyone has got his or her own
problems in this world. I will speak to his majesty and we will understand each other,”
said the vicious cow. “It is well then if you will speak to him. As for me, I am not even
prepared to meet with him face to face. I am very afraid of his majesty,” said the kind
cow.

These cows were in a big forest when they were talking. They both agreed that they
should go across the river to *Hlalankhosi (*where the king stays) where his majesty
lived and present themselves, and explain their reasons for failing to attend the
meeting. They left their place in the morning and arrived at Hlalankhosi at about
sunset. They announced their arrival and his majesty welcomed them.

256
Long moments passed as not one of the cows were prepared to speak. They both had
wide open eyes fixed in one place. “Speak and I am listening. Are you visiting me or
you have come to stare at me with your eyes as big as rocks?” asked the king with
much fury in his eyes. The vicious cow spoke and said, “King of the land, we are here
because we are yours. We have come to report ourselves to his majesty that we could
not attend the meeting because our calves were sick.”

The king had already given the order that any animal which failed to attend the meeting
will be punished painfully. The king did not respond to what the vicious cow said. He
kept quiet for a long time refusing to respond. After a while he answered and said, “Oh,
you mean that your calves are more important than me?” The cows failed to answer
the king’s question and from that time they could tell that they were in much bigger
trouble than they thought.

They left the king’s palace without a clear response from the king. While they were on
their way back to the forest they heard heavy footsteps behind them. The vicious cow
turned and looked back. She found herself face to face with Lion King. The king came
very close to the vicious cow and tried to grab her by her neck to break it. She
responded quickly as though she was expecting this to happen. With her hind legs she
kicked the king so hard that he landed quite a distance away. Furious, the king once
again came for the vicious cow. She kicked the King again, this time with double her
strength. The King was flung even further away and landed on a tree trunk painfully.
This time he ran away for his dear life.

All this time the kind cow was nowhere to be seen. She had decided to run away and
not to go back to their home. Eventually she found herself at a human homestead
where she was domesticated and protected from there on. That marked the beginning
of cows being farm animals. The vicious cow remained in the forest and became a
buffalo. The end.

257
Folktale 5. Imphangele (The Guinea Fowl) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:61

Once upon a time there was a guinea fowl, a bird with black and white dots. The guinea
fowl could fly and also run very fast. Before it laid its eggs it always checked if it is in a
safe place.

One day it laid eggs in its nest. When it was time for it the eggs to hatch there came
along boys who were looking after cattle and they said:

“Guinea fowl! Guinea Fowl!

Black and white dots

You who run crying

Give us eggs”

They went straight for its nest and it ran away. They took all the eggs. The guinea fowl
cried bitterly and ran into a rocky place. In this rocky place it came across a snake that
was slithering painfully because it was bleeding on the side. It was quite obvious that
it had been stoned. The guinea fowl cried its heart out in front of the snake.

“What is going on Guinea Fowl, asked the snake in pain. “My eggs are all gone, human
beings took them,” said the guinea fowl. The snake also cried bitterly and said, “I am
in so much pain because of the human beings. They wanted to smash my head but
fortunately for me they only hit me on my side.”

These animals related their sad stories to each other. They spoke about how they were
not happy about the way the human beings treated them. They made an agreement
that they will help each other at all times. They will fight their mutual enemies: the
human beings.

Snake said, “Please allow me to stay under your nest. That is how I will be able to take
revenge on these human beings.” The guinea fowl agreed quickly because it was
determined to see its eggs protected from the human beings.

258
That is how it all started that where ever there is a guinea fowl nest, a snake will be
nearby. The end.

Folktale 6. Inja nelikati (A Dog and a Cat) Simelane & Thwala, 1991:72

Once upon a time a dog and a cat lived together and they loved each other very much.
Everybody knew that they loved each other. It was also known that these were
domestic animals and that they had to do a lot of work in the house where they lived.

Oh! What a blunder their owner made. He called them together, “My animals, today I
am going to give you different duties which is going to separate you. Cat, you will now
work inside the house and catch and kill the rats. You, Dog, will now work outside the
house guarding the premises. You will bark at everyone who comes into the premises.”

Both of these animals accepted their new duties. The dog thought that it has been
given the outside job because it is trusted. The cat thought it has been given the inside
job because it is being looked down upon. These thoughts occurred in the animals’
minds even before they started working on their new jobs.

As time went on things changed. “Why have you been given an easy job of working
inside the house and I have been given a difficult job of working outside the house?”
asked the dog.

“The job I am doing is not an easy one. Do you think that looking for rats in the whole
house is an easy thing?” asked the cat feeling very upset.

“Well, I bark day and night without resting. I get all the cold of the night. I get all the
wind that blows hard. I get all the heat of the sun. Now, you tell me what hardship you
are faced with?” the dog asked. The cat kept quiet for a while and then said, “You just
like to complain my friend. It is such a wonderful thing to feel cold. The blowing of a
breeze is healthy. The rains wash your body. What then are you complaining about?”
The dog did not answer.

259
“What do you then say about me who sits in the heat all the time, with flees killing me.
I never get any cool air. I never get any rain on me, what do say about that?” asked
the cat turning around everything the dog said.

Since that day the animals started hating each other. What really discouraged the dog
was to see the cat sitting on a chair. In his thoughts the dog concluded that the cat was
living a good life.

You drink milk and I am not given any. You are given meat and I eat dry bones,” said
the dog with tears forming in its eyes. The dog did not like the discrimination that was
practiced by their owner. After that it started disappearing from home. Sometimes it
would go to places and not come back home for a long time. Their owner was not
happy about what the dog had started doing.

Now the dog started going away from home for many days without returning home.
The owner was very unhappy it. It started misbehaving in a way no one had ever
known. A lot of people reported this to its owner. The owner was now even more
troubled by the behaviour of the dog.

The owner of the cat and the dog made a very tough decision with regards to what the
dog. He said, “Starting from today you will live in the veld!” Dog was very angry and
said, “I know the one who put me into this trouble, it is the cat. The cat does not really
know who I am and what I am capable of doing.”

Each time the cat came closer to the dog a big fight would break out. From that time
the cat started staying away from the dog. Every time the dog would see the cat it
would want to tear it up. The cat always narrowly escaped. The end.

Folktale 7. Sihhanya neligundvwane (A Wildcat and a Rat) Simelane &

Thwala, 1991:75

Once upon a time it is said that Rat used to look after Wildcat’s children (the kittens).
Wildcat would leave its house every morning to go and look for food for its children
and Rat. Rat was living comfortably at Wildcat’s home and it was doing a great job.

260
It is said that Wildcat was staying in a dark forest where it had its well-built house. Oh,
she was such a very neat individual. Wildcat had always been as neat as it is still same
even today.

It so happened one day that Wildcat left her home for the whole day. She did not come
back home. Rat and Wildcat’s children were very hungry. All day long Rat looked out
intently hoping to see Wildcat coming back coming home, but she did not. Due to
extreme hunger and thirst Rat and Wildcat’s children’s mouths were dry and cracking.
They were even unable to talk.

Rat decided to go out to hunt for food for herself and of course for Wildcat’s children.
It went away for a long time because of the scarcity of food. Soon after it had left the
home Lion came. He ate all of Wildcat’s children.

Rat finally came back. As she got close to the house she noticed some blood stains
and realised that something very scary had happened. “Yooh! Wildcat will kill me!”
exclaimed Rat. She was so confused. She did not know what to do next.

“Oh, the best thing to do is for me to leave this forest and run away to a far way place.
Wildcat will not even want to listen to me.” said Rat to herself. Indeed, Rat left the
forest at once. She ran away to a faraway place. She finally went into a certain home
and asked for a place to stay.

It was not very long after the arrival of Rat people started complaining about their
pumpkins seeds in the fields being eaten. They also complained about their mealies
being eaten. They did not know what or who was eating their pumpkins and mealies.
The people who gave Rat a place to stay felt bad and very disappointed. They even
said that this problem started after the arrival of the stranger they gave a place to stay.

As days went by Wildcat eventually came back to her home. She found no one at
home. By the blood stains on the floor she could tell that her children have been killed.
She was very sorrowful.

261
She started looking for Rat everywhere but could not find her. She decided to go
sniffing around just maybe by her smell she can tell where Rat disappeared to. Indeed,
she did that with success. Led by Rat’s scent she found out where she was.

Wildcat went straight into the home where Rat was and asked for a place to stay too.
She was given a job of guarding pumpkins and the mealies and making sure that it
does not get eaten as before. Rat got such a fright when she saw that Wildcat was
also staying in this home as she was.

Rat dug up a hole and disappeared into it. This was the start of Rat staying in a hole.
She would only come out of the hole at night to go and look for food and come back at
night. She continued digging the hole until it reached the house. She now started being
troublesome inside the house. When the people woke up in the morning they would
find all the leftover food from the previous dinner gone. Rat had eaten it.

The people noticed that mealies and the pumpkins were not being eaten anymore.
They then asked Wildcat to come into the house and guard the troublesome Rat. She
looked for Rat but never found her. Wildcat would often cry and say, Rat! Rat! Bring
my children whom I left with you to look after. Bring my children!’’

Rat would also be heard squeaking and shouting, “They got eaten up by the Lion. They
have been eaten up by the Lion. Who do you want them from, who do you want them
from?’’

Wildcat sniffed everywhere looking for Rat. She searched in the bedrooms, in the
kitchen and everywhere else. From that day until today Wildcat is still looking for Rat.
The end.

Folktale 8. Imphungutje nelichudze (The Jackal and the Rooster)

Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992 :55

Once upon a time Jackal travelled a long distance looking for food. As he was still on
his way he got frightened by Rooster. Rooster was sitting up in a fig tree crowing as

262
usual. After realising that it was only Rooster that had frightened him, he recovered
quickly. He started getting excited because he was seeing meat.

The animals greeted each other. Jackal then said, “My beloved friend, there is exciting
news that I must tell you about.” “What exciting news is that Jackal?” asked Rooster.
Jackal replied and said, “Get down from the tree my friend so I may tell you well while
you are on the ground.” Rooster kept quiet for a moment and then said, “I must get
down before you will tell me the news? It will be much better Jackal if you can just give
me a summary of the news first.’’ Jackal was disappointed but then said, “Do you know
that the war that was between the birds and animals is now over? Now we will live
together as children of one woman.” Rooster just listened quietly and then said, “I really
did not know that. I thank what brought you here Jackal and I have no doubt that my
other friends who are also coming this way will tell me the same good news.”

Jackal got a fright and asked, “Who are those friends of yours that are coming
Rooster?” “No one serious Jackal, just friends of mine. But if you really want to know I
will tell you, it is the dogs.” Rooster replied. After a short moment of silence Jackal
spoke, “Oh my friend I am in such a hurry. I cannot wait for them because there is
somewhere else that I must hurry to. We will meet next time and talk further.” Rooster
replied and said, “I do not understand the reason you are rushing off now Jackal.”
Jackal answered while he was already on his way to where he was going, “No, I really
cannot wait for them and I might even be delayed by what you are saying. Maybe the
good news has not yet reached the dogs and that can put me in danger. Goodbye my
friend!”

The Rooster laughed out loud as he watched Jackal hurrying off not even looking back
once. Rooster was telling a lie there were no dogs coming. He only wanted to verify if
Jackal’s news was true. That is how Rooster was saved from being eaten by Jackal.
The end.

263
Folktale 9. Chakijane nebutulujane bakhe (The Mongoose and its
trickery) Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992 :65

Lion was a king as he is a king even today because the animals are afraid of him. He
has always been well respected by all the animals.

One-day Mongoose was going around blowing a horn and announcing to all the
animals that even though every animal is very afraid of Lion, he rides on him. In other
words, he was surprised why the animals were respecting a horse instead of
respecting its rider. As Mongoose was going around making this announcement he
made sure that he did not go near where Lion. He went up and down and everywhere
making his announcement.

All the animals were surprised about this announcement. The news of Mongoose and
his announcement finally reached Lion. Lion was very angry and sent out an instruction
that Mongoose must be brought to him alive. A hunting party set off looking for the
Mongoose. Lion also went out to look for Mongoose himself. As Lion was searching
all over he came across Mongoose. “Yah, here we meet Mongoose. Why do you go
around and bad mouthing me? I am asking you Mongoose! What is this you go around
saying about me?” He was very angry.

“No, no! Animal King, I do not understand you, what are you saying?” Mongoose
exclaimed innocently. Mongoose knew very well what Lion was talking about. “You are
going about telling all the animals that I am your horse, did you ever ride on me?”
asked Lion even more angry now.

“My King who says I said that? Animals can be such liars you know. I really do not like
animals who seek to be trusted by lying about other animals,” said Mongoose,
innocently. “Yes, it is true I was told by Impala and Wild pig. Rock rabbit and Buffalo
told me too,” replied the Lion.

“Go further no more my King all these animals are telling a blatant lie. Yoh! yoh! Indeed,
it’s true that one will find himself in trouble without cause!” exclaimed Mongoose. He
continued, “Now I am in trouble just because of some animals making up lies about

264
me.” Lion answered him and said, “Yes, indeed this is a case deserving a life
sentence.” “But, my King I request that we go and ask all the animals who say I have
said this. It is only then that I will accept the sentence I am given, if indeed it comes
out that I am guilty as charged,” said Mongoose.

Indeed, Lion agreed to Mongoose’s suggestion. They both set off walking through
bushes and tall grass. As they were walking Mongoose suddenly let out a piercing cry,
“Ouch, ouch! I have stumbled on a rock and hurt my small toe. Ouch it hurt so much!”
Mongoose sat down and coiled up and cried for a long time. Seeing that this accident
was going to delay them and Lion was in a hurry to resolve the matter and punish
Mongoose accordingly, Lion said, “Ok Mongoose let me carry you on my back because
we are getting delayed.” Mongoose agreed hurriedly because he could see that his
trick was going to work. Lion picked Mongoose up and carried him on his back. They
carried on with their journey.

While they were on their way Lion saw a sjambok on the ground. “Ah! Wonderful I have
found a sjambok. I will use it on animals like you Mongoose. Disrespectful animals like
you, who go around dragging kings’ names on the mud,” Lion said, picking up the
sjambok. As they were walking Mongoose said, “Can you please lend me your
sjambok to ward off these flies; they are troubling my sore on my small toe.”

Without any problem Lion gave Mongoose the sjambok. Mongoose was overjoyed
because his trick was working very well. He made fun of Lion, pretending to be heating
him with the sjambok on his buttocks. Lion was not aware of all this. He was just
walking as fast as he could to get to the animals they needed to question. When
Mongoose realised that they were now closer to the other animals he said to Lion, “My
King of kings please try and walk much faster than this because my wound is very,
very painful now, actually I think I am about to die.” Indeed, Lion tried to walk much
faster than before. He really thought Mongoose was going to die. “On no! Run my King
of kings this wound is killing me. I am afraid I am going to die before my King has
punished me. It is better to die because of my King’s punishment, not to be killed by a
wound,” said Mongoose lying through his teeth again.

265
The Lion broke into a run while Hare sat comfortably on his back, riding on his horse,
Lion. When they were now at close range of the animals and they could all see them,
Hare hit Lion with the sjambok so hard and it went all the way under his stomach. and
showed on the other side. Hare then shouted, “Ah, where is my lie then? Did I not tell
you that Lion is my horse? I always ride on him. Is this a dog I am riding?” asked
Mongoose beating Lion on the buttocks again and again, on the head and on the eyes.
Hare was beating Lion so much because he was now showing off.

All the other animals stopped what they were doing and stared at them. You would
swear that they were frozen. They watched what was happening in amazement and
disbelief. They could not believe their eyes. Lion stood amongst the other animals.
Mongoose jump down and ran away and disappeared. Lion was very ashamed and
angry that Mongoose tricked him. The end.

Folktale 10. The Biggest Famine and the Rats Ndlela and Magagula
1994:08

Once upon a time the biggest famine ever broke out in white people’s land. This was
during a time when animals could speak just like human beings do. They all spoke one
language. The sun was so hot in that country that it burnt all the crops in the fields.
The situation was so bad that there was an announcement that all the white people
should come and get for food parcels from the government.

It was well known that rats eat what human beings eat. If there is famine in a country
and people are starving, the rats will starve even more. Rats eat what has been left
over from human beings. They also eat what human beings have kept carelessly.

The rats were very troubled. They were going up and down and everywhere else in
search for food. Unfortunately, they never got anything. The adult rats thought of a
certain plan. There was a very big bakery near the forest where the rats lived. There
was also a dumping area called kaMdodi where all the rotten bread was dumped.
There was so much food found at kaMdodi. The rats were very happy when they heard
of this place.

266
The plan the adult rats had was to call the rats to a big meeting. The following was
going to be discussed in this big meeting: Sharing of bread, getting an expect to weigh
the bread and that there should be no cheating.

These points were discussed at length and all the rats agreed to them. In one accord
they shouted, “We agree!” It was so loud that it was heard in faraway places. They
also agreed that they should ask Rabbit because he was very good is sharing food
fairly. Rabbit was then requested to come and help the rats. Rabbit was very excited
by the invitation and smiled all the time. He was so excited because she loved bread
very much. She never knew that she may be so lucky to be asked to handle bread.
She did not want to disappoint the rats. She agreed and not wasting time he took his
weighing scale to weigh the bread and off he went to the rats. Rabbit knew that a
portion of bread that fills his mouth can be enough to feed ten rats.

Rabbit started his job. He put weights on one side of the scale and a big piece of bread
on the other. The scale went down on the side where the bread was. Rabbit took a big
bite of the bread and left a very small piece. He put the small piece back on the scale.
The scale went up to shown that it is now much lighter than the weights. Without
wasting any time Rabbit placed another piece of bread on the scale. He was adding to
the piece of bread that was already there.

The side of the scale with the bread went down. This meant that the bread was heavier.
Rabbit took the bread and took a big bite and then put it back on the scale. The side
of the scale with bread was, went down. This meant that the bread was very little now
or was weighing less than the weights. Without any waste of time again Rabbit took
another big piece of bread and added it to the piece that was on the scale. Now the
bread weighed more than the weights again. Rabbit took a good bite of the piece of
bread and put the rest back onto the scale. When he looked and saw that the bread
was small now, she added yet another piece. The rats looked at each other surprised
as to what was Rabbit doing. Rabbit’s stomach was getting bigger and bigger. In the
meantime, the bread was getting smaller and smaller. For some reason Rabbit was
now sweating. When only a few pieces of bread were left he took all of it shoved it into

267
her bag. He said that the pieces he shoved in her bag were her payment for working
so hard, weighing bread. He broke into run and left the rats astonished.

The rats were very disappointed with Rabbit’s actions. That was the day they took a
decision that they will no longer stay in bushes but in people’s homes. That is why rats
are now found in people’s homes. The end.

Folktale 11. Indlovu nelibhubesi kuyadvonsana (Elephant and Lion

pulling against one another) Ndlela and Magagula 1994:23

Once upon a time there was a very clever small animal. It was the cleverest of all the
other animals. This was Hare. Hare was always scheming and thinking of devious
plans to show off to the other animals that he was the cleverest of them all, especially
those animals who were bigger than him. Hare was known by all the animals that he
was clever. This was so because each time any animal had a serious problem and
needed advice and solutions it will go to Hare. He would always solve the problems
without any struggle.

One-day Hare took his long rope and went over to Elephant. There was a certain trick
he wanted Elephant to fall for. He found Elephant still asleep because it was a very
hot morning. “Good morning Elephant, how are you my friend? It has been long since
I last saw you,” said Hare.

Elephant looked at Hare straight in his eyes and said, “Morning Hare, I am well my
friend. What are you doing with such a long rope? Are you perhaps thinking of killing
yourself?” Hare replied with some fear because Elephant sounded like he was irritated,
“Oh, no, no, me kill myself? There is just too much fun on earth and I can’t
disadvantage myself in such a way. I still have a lot of wonderful things to do. I wanted
to show you my strength, how strong I am,” replied Hare.

“What strength do you have, you are as thin as a tooth pick,” said Elephant with so
much irritation, mainly because he was still sleepy and not feeling very well. “Oh, friend
do not interject me. I will tell you what I have come to you for. Since you are below the
hill I will drop down the rope to you. I will then go to the other side of the mountain to

268
hold onto the other end of the rope. Once I am there I will then call out to you that the
tug of war can now start. I promise I will drag you over to me because of the strength
I have,” said Hare.

“Are you well up in your head Hare?” asked Elephant. But since you are so foolish I
will do it. You do not care about yourself. Even if I say ‘come sit on my back while I am
sleeping’ I would not feel that there is something on my back,” said Elephant
undermining Hare.

Indeed, Hare went away to the other side of the hill. He was very happy that Elephant
has agreed. When he got on the other side of the hill he came across Lion who was
just walking around. “Good morning Hare, where are you going to walking so fast,
gasping for air and pulling such a long rope?” Lion asked. Hare explained to Lion that
he has tied the rope around a tree on the other side of the mountain and he has now
come to this side so to find Lion to pull the rope. Hare would then go to the other side
of the hill to pull the rope so they may see who has the most strength.

“Hare, are you crazy, do you really think that you can overpower me. You are so tiny
that I can grab you with one hand and throw you far away,” said Lion with his mane
standing up as though he was ready to fight.

“Oh no! Lion my friend, this is just a game. We are not fighting. I do not have strength
for fighting but only for playing games, playing tug of war. Please just do as I am asking
you to do. Here, hold here I am now going to the other side as I have explained already.
Once you hear me blowing a whistle you must start pulling the rope with all your might.
I will also do the same,” said Hare. Off, went Hare leaving Lion holding fast to the other
end of the rope. He ran quickly to the other side of the hill and instructed Elephant the
same as he did Lion. After that he ran to the hill top and blew his whistle. When
Elephant heard the whistle he started pulling the rope with all his might. On the other
side of the mountain Lion started feeling that the rope was being pulled so he also
started pulling the rope with all his might. He pulled so much that his paws started
aching. He felt that he was losing the tug of war. Out of anger he let out a loud roar
because he did not want to be defeated by Hare.

269
Elephant was also not having it easy. He was surprised as to where Hare was getting
all this strength to give him such a hard time and make him sweat. He continued pulling
harder than before. When Hare realised that the members of the big five were at each
other, he fell fast asleep. The tug of war went on until very late in the afternoon. Hare
woke up because he was now very hungry. Upon waking up he remembered that he
left Lion and Elephant pulling each other. Lion’s children were surprised that their
father was being given hard time by Hare. When they wanted to help him defeat Hare
he refused to be helped in tug of war against Hare. The situation was same on
Elephant’s side.

When Hare noticed that the rope was no longer moving but was still and tense he blew
his whistle. The rope became loose very quickly. Hare ran to Lion and said, “Do you
see then how much strength I have.” Lion did not answer him. He just laid down
exhausted and also surprised that Hare did not seem tired at all. Hare said his good
byes to Lion and ran as fast as he could to Elephant. He found him also lying down,
exhausted and very angry because Hare had beaten him.

Hare took his rope and ran back home to go and find something to eat. His stomach
was growling as though Lion and Elephant were doing a tug of war in his stomach. He
then told all the animals about the tug of war. This news was trending all over the
animal world. Everybody was very surprised that Hare no longer lead just because of
his cleverness but also because of his power and strength. He was feared and
respected so much that they started calling him the King of the animals. The end.

Folktale 12. Logolantsetse netintsetse (The Grasshopper Catcher and

the grasshoppers) Ndlela and Magagula 1994:29

A long, long time ago all animals, lizards, chickens, grasshoppers and many other
creatures spoke one language. Everything that was created and breathing spoke only
that language.

There was a grasshopper king called Ngcamngceshe and there was also a bird with a
long neck that was called Logolantsetse (Grasshopper Catcher) who got his name of
because he loved to hunt and eat grasshoppers. Wherever Logolantsetse was sitting,

270
one always noticed that his crop was full of grasshoppers. He would often be so full
that he would even have difficulties flying. If you could come across him before he had
eaten his grasshoppers, you would swear that was sick and yet he was so well.

One day there was a serious complaint from the grasshoppers about Grasshopper
Catcher. The complaint was so much that the grasshoppers decided to hold a meeting
to find a solution. Grasshopper Catcher was to be invited to this meeting.

Twenty grasshoppers were sent out to invite Grasshopper Catcher to be present in

their meeting. He was not told why he was invited to this meeting. But as a clever bird
himself he suspected that it probably had something to do with him. He had a lot of
time to prepare himself for this meeting. It was as though his prayers had been
answered because it was a week and he had not tasted even one small grasshopper.
His four children were coming from hunting when they got home and found their father
sitting on the floor looking so happy and yet his crop was empty. They were surprised
why their father was so happy.

Once they were all seated around him, he then told them about his invitation to the
grasshoppers’ meeting. The children were also very excited. You would swear that
there was a party at their house that night. They were so excited they hardly slept that
night. Grasshopper Catcher and his children agreed that at the meeting they will
request the grasshoppers to all close their eyes and pray before the meeting begins.
This was going to include Grasshopper Catcher and his children. Once all the
unsuspecting grasshoppers close their eyes Grasshopper Catcher and his children
would then catch all the grasshoppers and eat them.

On the day of the meeting, before sunrise Grasshopper Catcher and his children were
already comfortably seated at the place the meeting was going to be held. They looked
so dignified and humble. It was very quiet. The only sound that could be heard was of
them swallowing their saliva. The thought of catching so many grasshoppers without
any effort was making them salivate. The grasshoppers also came to the meeting in
numbers. They all wanted to have a closer look at Grasshopper Catcher. As the
grasshoppers were coming in there started to be a lot of noise. It took Ngcamngceshe

271
a while to quiet them down. As the sun was now a bit up and warm Ngcamngceshe
cleared his voice spoke.

“Eeh, it really tears my heart apart when I see the number of the grasshopper
community dwindling so badly...” Before Ngcamngceshe could go any further
Grasshopper Catcher stood up and apologised for disturbing the king and said, “I am
so sorry, you of the red and green grasshopper community, with your permission
wonderful and clever king, may I say something?” It pleased Ngcamngceshe to know
that even the Grasshopper Catcher knew that he is a wonderful and clever king. He
said, “With my permission, you can carry on Grasshopper Catcher. We are listening.
We want to hear what is it you want to say for yourself before I take a decision about
the matter that has made us gather here today.”

“Thank you so much my wonderful king of kings. We are also here because when you
are called by the king, it is the right thing not to waste time but go there so you may
hear for yourself. My king, where I come from, when we are gathered and there is a
king in our midst, as some of you might know, we do not just start right away with our
meeting. We report to our Creator. I therefore request that we all close our eyes; yes,
all of us so that the king can pray that this meeting is successful. We should not make
a fool of our Creator. We must all close our eyes so that our Creator may be pleased
with us. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk my king of kings,” said
Grasshopper Catcher, lying though his teeth.

Ngcamngceshe the king thanked Grasshopper Catcher. He even remarked that what
Grasshopper Catcher had just said had also been dropped into his spirit by the
Creator. The king then asked everybody to close their eyes so that Grasshopper
Catcher may pray. As he was praying and everyone’s eyes were closed tight he
nudged his children, signalling to them that the job must now begin. They started
catching the poor unsuspecting grasshoppers in numbers. Grasshopper Catcher
prayed a long prayer on purpose so that his children could catch as many
grasshoppers as they could. When he finally said amen he coughed, his children were
now full.

272
When they all opened their eyes, Ngcamngceshe looked all around him. He was
shocked to see such a small number of grasshoppers. When he looked at
Grasshopper Catcher and his children he noticed their stuffed crops. There was no
doubt that they were the ones who ate all the other missing grasshoppers. He did not
waste any more time, he opened his wings and flew away as fast and as far as he
could.

The only grasshoppers that survived were those that Grasshopper Catcher’s children
could not eat because they were too full. From that day the grasshopper king was
never to be seen again. It is not known where he disappeared to. The end.

Folktale 13. Salukati lesaphekwa siphila (The old lady who was cooked
alive), Mkhatjwa, Masoka, Maseko, and S Mazibuko. 2015:49

Once upon a time there was a home with an old lady and her three grandchildren.
Every day her grandchildren would wake up and go and hoe the fields. The old lady
would remain home alone. She would fetch water from the stream and fire wood from
the forest. She would also cook food for her grandchildren so that they could eat when
they come back from the fields.

One-day Mongoose passed by this home. She looked and saw that the old lady was
alone and greeted her. “Hello, old lady. Why does it look like you are alone? Let us
play a game of cooking each other!”

The old lady who was often lonely was happy when she saw Hare and more so
because Hare wanted to spend time with her playing this game of cooking each other.
She asked Mongoose, “What kind of a game are you talking about?” Mongoose
explained, “You will get into this pot. I will then pour some water and close the pot very
tight. When you start feeling hot you will call out and say, “I am burning, I am burning,
take me out.” I will then take you of the pot. When it is my turn to get into the pot I will
do the same.”

This game was not a good one but there was no other they could play to help the old
lady while away time. The old lady was the first one to go into the pot. Mongoose put

273
more wood into the fire. After some time, the old lady started feeling hot. She then
shouted, “I am burning, I am burning take me out.” Indeed, Mongoose took her out
and went into the pot. When Mongoose shouted, “I am burning, I am burning take me
out.” The old lady opened the lid and Hare came out.

They continued playing their game for a long time. Then one time when the old lady
called out that she was burning Mongoose was not bordered to open the lid and let the
old lady out. She still called out, “Please take me out I am burning.” Mongoose replied,
“Oh no old lady you are not cooked yet. You must burn your, gravy is very nice.” The
old lady continued shouting until she got tired and died. Hare then dressed herself in
the old lady’s clothes and pretended to be her. She then cooked and dished up for the
children. She put their food a distance from the doorway.

In the evening of that day the grandchildren came back from the fields much later than
usual. They were very, very hungry because they worked the whole day.

As soon as they got home they just took their food and started eating. As they were
eating Mongoose was sleeping comfortably in the old lady’s bed pretending to be her.
The one small boy took a good look at the meat they were eating and said, “What is
this in my food looking like a finger?” Mongoose heard this and quickly answered,
“What are you saying my grandchild, I spent the whole day cooking for you and now
you come and say nonsense.” They continued eating. The other boy noticed
something strange in his food too and asked, “Why does this look like a human hand?”
Mongoose started laughing now and quickly opened the door and ran away. She went
along blowing her whistle singing, “Pe! pe! pe! You have eaten your own granny and
thought it was meat. Pe! pe! pe! You have eaten your granny thinking it is meat!”

The grandchildren were very angry. They took their sticks and started chasing after
Hare. They ran as fast as they could but unfortunately they never caught her.

As Hare was running she came into a flooded river and could not cross it. Seeing the
grandchildren would catch up with her she tuned herself into a stone. When the boys
got to the river bank they noticed that Hare did not cross the river, but what surprised

274
them was that Hare was not there. There was only a very beautiful boulder lying on
the ground. One of the boys picked up the boulder and said, “If I see Hare I will smash
her head with this boulder.” He used all his strength and threw the boulder across the
river. As the boulder fell on the ground on other side of the river it turned into hare.
Hare took out her whistle and blew it again singing, “Pe! pe! pe! You have helped me
cross the river, thinking I am a boulder.” She continued to sing until she disappeared
over the hill. The boys were left standing on the river bank amazed and very angry.
They then went back home because there was absolutely nothing they could do. The
end.

Folktale 14. The enmity between the Hawk and the Chickens. Shongwe,
M, 1992:43

There was once a hawk and some chickens that were best of friends. It is said that
Hawk and the chickens lived together. They made decisions together and also solved
problems together. Hawk laid some eggs and she loved them so much.

One-day Hawk was very, very hungry. She looked around the house for something to
eat but did not find anything. She then decided to go out and look for food in other
places. She asked the chickens to look after her eggs. The chickens showed to be
honest and yet they were lying to the Hawk. Hawk then set off to a faraway place
across the river where the chickens could not reach. Hawk said that there was plenty
food there.

Hawk was gone for a long time such that the chickens got tired of sitting and looking
after her eggs. They could not go anywhere and do their own things because of this
job they had to do. They waited and waited and seeing that Hawk was taking long to
come back, they then decided that they all go and look for her. They asked every
animal they came across if he or she had not seen Hawk. All the animals they came
across told them that they have not seen Hawk. They then decided to go back home.
On the way they blamed each other for making a mistake of leaving no one to look
after Hawk’s eggs. They ran as fast as they could. They were praying that they get

275
home before Hawk had arrived. But, shame, had they known they would not bother
doing that all that.

When Hawk finally returned she found no one at home. Her eggs were also not there
and this made her furious. She flew away looking for the chickens everywhere but
unfortunately she never found them. The chickens were thinking hard of what they will
say to Hawk if she finds the eggs were gone. They were so shocked when they got
home and found Hawk already there. “Where are my eggs?” asked Hawk in a very
angry voice. None of the chickens answered. They all kept quiet as though they were
deaf and dumb. Hawk continued speaking. She said words that cut through their
hearts, “Our friendship has ended as of today. We will no longer stay together.” The
chickens decided to leave. A certain man found them and domesticated them.

Hawk sent a stern message to the chickens, “Since we are no longer friends and
relatives, know it very well that your chicks are my food.” Even today you will find
chickens scratching the ground. They are looking for Hawk’s eggs. They think that
maybe Hawk’s eggs got washed away by rain or got buried under ground. This is so
because it was raining very hard the day Hawk’s eggs went missing. Hawk also started
snatching the chicks. That is how the amenity started between the hawks and the
chickens. The end.

Folktale 15. Lusoti netinkhukhu (The Hawk and the Chickens) Bhiya,
1993:06

Once upon a time the chicken’s homes were built not far from Hawk’s house. Not very
far from them there were also the human beings big ploughing fields. The human
beings were growing all sorts of crops; sorghum, mealies, sugarcane and many more
crops. Hawk, other birds, and the chickens always stole crops from the fields. Hawk
never had a problem harvesting a lot of mealies because he had a big sharp axe. He
would simply cut a lot of maize stalks at once and then he would eat as much as he
pleased.

He would harvest the crops as though he was harvesting from his own fields. Hawk
got very fat. One day some hens asked Cock to go to Hawk and borrow his big sharp

276
axe on their behalf. They also wanted to cut down as many maize stalks as they could.
They wanted to feed their chicks and have enough to eat. Indeed, Cock went over to
Hawk to borrow the big sharp axe. He almost found Hawk gone because he was just
about to leave his home to go visit his relatives.

“How can I help you my neighbour?” Asked Hawk scratching his cheek as though
saying, “Oh my goodness here is some meat on my door step.” “My children are dying
of hunger. Can’t you please borrow me your big sharp axe so I may cut down for them
some sorghum from the fields?” Cock asked.

“I am leaving now, going to visit my relatives over the mountains. Here is the axe but
please my neighbour, do me a big favour and do not lose it. Bring it back this evening
because my survival depends on it. Oh, you can actually bring it back tomorrow when
I am back home,” said Hawk as he was handing Cock the axe. Cock thanked Hawk
and then they parted ways. Hawk went to visit his relatives as he had said. Cock went
back home.

As soon as Cock got home he gave the axe to his wives. His wives called the children
and they went down to the fields. The hens were so excited that today they will have
a lot of food. All that could be heard from the baby chickens was “chirp! chirp! chirp!”
and from the hens “tuck-tuck-tuck. That was a sign that they were having a good time
eating sorghum. The hens cut down a lot of sorghum and mealie stalks. Those who
were passing by will never forget seeing the hens and their chicks having the greatest
feast ever. As the chickens were eating they had thrown down the axe next to the big
pile of mealie and sorghum stalks. They had all actually forgotten all about it. As they
fished the sorghum or mealies on each stalk they would throw it aside. The axe was
eventually buried under the pile of empty stalks.

When the chickens had eaten enough they all went back home. They had eaten so
much they had difficulty walking. They walked very slowly until they got home. They
had forgotten all about the axe. All they could think about was the feast they had had.
The following day as they were at home going about their daily activities they saw

277
Hawk entering their yard. Hawk came in and greeted them. Cock offered Hawk some
sorghum as a welcome gesture and appreciation of what he had done for them.

Hawk did not accept the sorghum he said he had already eaten where he was coming
from. He then said, “I have come to fetch my axe. I want to go a cut some timber so I
may fix the roof of my house. It leaks each time it is raining.”

Oh no, trouble started when Cock asked the hens for Hawk’s axe. The hens started
pointing fingers at each other. Each one said she used it and gave it to the next one.
No hen remembered what happened to the axe after they had finished using it. They
started scrapping the ground hopping the will find the axe. They scratched everywhere
but unfortunately they never found the axe. They realised that war might ensue at any
given moment. Hawk was getting very angry and running out of patience waiting for
the someone to find his axe.

Finally, Hawk spoke and said to the hens, “It is now clear to me that you lost my axe.
How will I survive now? From this moment I will survive by eating your children.” As
Hawk was speaking he was going towards one of the chicks. He grabbed it, ate and
finished it quickly. The hens cackled and jumped back in shock and trauma. The other
chicks were so traumatized they laid flat on the ground. Hawk went away and told them
he will be coming back. He will come back again and again for as long as they do not
find his axe.

The chickens continued looking for Hawk’s axe. They scratched and scratched and
scratched the ground but no axe was found. Even today the chickens are still
scratching the ground looking for Haw’s axe. In the same way whenever hawks are
hungry they eat chicks. The chicken’s problem will be over the day they give Hawk his
axe back. The end.

Folktale 16. Logwaja nematfundvuluka. (The Hare and the Wild Sour
Plums) Bhiya, 1993:30

Once upon a time life was good and there were many different kinds of fruit to eat. The
fruit trees included the wild meddler, green monkey orange, black monkey orange,

278
Natal milk plum and wild goose berries. You could never finish counting all the wild
fruits! The sun will rise and set and you would still be counting them. The wild meddlers
were plenty and the birds loved them very much. The wild animals use to have a
special orchard where they would go and eat fruits. But, they would only eat the fruits
from this special orchard with king Lion’s permission. The animals loved the fruits from
this orchard very much.

As days went by there signs started showing that something was stealing the wild
plums from this orchard at night. The animals who went there during the day no longer
found ripe juicy wild plums. This bad act of stealing went on. The king ended up calling
a big meeting for all the wild animals who were all very scared of the king.

They all gathered at the king’s home. They were eager to find out why the king had
called them. There came, the wildebeests, impala, rabbits, tortoise, elephants, zebras
and many more. When the sun was well up in the sky the king appeared followed by
Elephant. The king gave one roar and all the animals were trembling. He sat on his
royal chair and started addressing the animal: “My animals I have called you to this
meeting. There is a bad sickness that has attacked some of you, my animals. I really
do not know what medication to give you to heal this disease. The fruits in the orchard
do not get time to be ripe enough now. Seemingly there are some of you who go to
the orchard at night without my permission and help themselves. When morning comes
one just see some broken branches hanging from the trees and all the ripe fruits gone.
One hardly finds a nice ripe fruit any more. As for me I have not been eating the wild
plums for a long time. I actually cannot remember when I last ate them.” The king
paused for a moment to clear his throat. “This bad behaviour must come to an end,”
he continued.

The animals were so quiet you would think they were deaf and dumb, if not dead. They
were listening attentively to the king. You should have seen how their ears were
standing up, especially of those animals with long ears. You would have been left in
stiches. “I shall now give you, my animals an opportunity to respond to what I have just

279
said. Who is this culprit who eats my wild plums? What can you say about this animal?”
asked the King. There was dead silence once again.

At last, Hippo stood up and said that he knows nothing because he lives under the
water in the dam. The impalas also stood up and said they also know nothing about
this matter. They really won’t know because they only like morula. Hare also stood up
and claimed he knows nothing about this matter. He mentioned though, that he has a
plan about how the culprit can be identified. He said the culprit will be identified by
having dew on his chest in the morning. The king must therefore send out his guards
every morning to go around checking all the animals. The one who will be found with
dew on his chest will be the culprit and will be killed. “Agreed!” shouted all the other
animals in one accord. They clapped their hands showing that they agree with what
Hare said. Hare jumped around a bit before sitting down. He was just showing that he
is happy that he has spoken sense and that all the animals liked and agreed to his
idea. The meeting then ended. The king told the animals to come back to the same
meeting place when sleeping time comes.

Sun set came and all the animals went back to the meeting place to sleep. They all
slept surrounding the king. They did this so that the king won’t get cold. When the
moon went down Hare got up silently and walked on tiptoes. Off he went to the orchard
to bless himself with the sour plums. Hare used to sleep during the day and then at
night he would go out. He ate the sour plums until his stomach was aching.

Now, Hare had to make a plan to escape from being killed. He was wet from the dew.
His whole body was wet. “Ok, I have a plan. I will go back to the camp and sneak in. I
will then wipe the dew onto Bushbuck. I will also shove some sour plum leave up
between its buttocks so that there is evidence that it’s him who ate the sour plums,”
Hare said excitedly to himself. He was now flapping his long ear flaps. Quickly Hare
left the fruit garden and went back to the camp. He found the animals all still fast
asleep. He crept back to where Bushbuck was sleeping. Poor, Bushbuck was fast
asleep and did not hear or feel a thing. Hare shoved some sour plum leaves up

280
between Bushbuck’s buttocks. Hare succeeded with his dirty plan. He then slept next
to Bushbuck and started snoring loudly.

The sun was slowly rising up from the east. In the morning the king was the first one
to wake up. “Everyone must wake up and remain where he/she was sleeping,” ordered
the king. Springbok ran as fast as could the to the fruit garden to see if there was some
evidence that fruits were eaten the previous night. It came back clapping and shaking
his head in disbelief of what he saw in the garden. “My king, there is not even a single
ripe sour plum in all the sour plum trees. Some of the trees are missing their leaves,”
said the Springbok in disbelief. Now the drill of checking the animals one by one
started. Each animal passed by the king and his runners. Hare’s turn came. He was
checked and passed through comfortably.

At the end Bushbuck came too, not suspecting anything. He was sure that he was also
innocent just like all the other animals that have gone before him. Even though he was
feeling something unusual between his buttocks he wasn’t really worried. He thought
it was because he did not go to use the toilet first thing in the morning when woke up
as he usually does.

Hare was standing next to the King pressing that the one to be found with some dew
must indeed be killed. He was standing there just to see if his plan will succeed.
Bushbuck came up and stood next to the King. “Wow Bushbuck you are wet with dew!”
exclaimed the King. All the other animals came running to see Bushbuck for
themselves. He was also checked between his buttocks. Guess what? They found the
sour plum tree leaves shoved up there. All the animals were now exclaiming about the
abomination Bushbuck has committed.

“What...?” roared Lion. Bushbuck went deaf. In fact, he thought he was dead, that the
king had swallowed him. “I am dying of hunger just because you, Bushbuck!” said Lion
King his mane standing up as though he was ready to kill Bushbuck. He was very, very
angry. Poor Bushbuck tried to speak at once stammering, “N-n-n-noo...ma-ma-
ma...my King. I du-du-du-do, do-do not…know anything. I wa-wa-was sleeping.” Poor
Bushbuck no one believed him. The king then ordered the guards to kill him.

281
The rest of the animals were then dismissed. Others went away very happy that the
culprit has been caught. Others felt sorry for him and really suspected that he was to
be killed for nothing. Hare slept through the night and never woke up even once to go
and pee.

The following morning the king woke up and went straight to the orchard to get some
sour plums for breakfast. In his shock there was not even one ripe plum in all the trees.
On the ground there were funny foot prints. He could not tell which animal belonged
to. He was now very confused as to who the culprit really was. When night time came,
one of the king’s guards was ordered to guard the orchard.

Right in the middle of the night Hare went into the king’s orchard. Just as he picked
the last sour plum he felt someone grabbing him. He tried to free himself but the guard
held him tightly. The guard shouted and called for help. In no time the other animals
came running. They were angry and eager to see the culprit who was troubling them.
They were angry that it means that Bushbuck was innocent and lost his life for nothing.

Hare tried his best to free himself, but the guard had his tail in a vice grip. Had the
guard known what would happen next perhaps he would have done things differently.
Because when Hare saw the rest of the animals coming he fought with all his might to
pull free and, oops, his tail broke off! The guard was left with the bigger part in his
hand. Hare ran away as fast as he could with all the animals chasing after him.
Springbok jumped to catch him but Hare quickly disappeared into Porcupine’s hole.

“Come out Hare, we saw you diving into that hole,” said one animal. Hare just laughed
at them. They could even hear him laugh. One animal suggested that they get a long
hooked stick that they can use to poke around the hole. One lowered the stick into the
hole. Suddenly the one holding the hook felt it getting heavy. It meant that they had
hooked him! They started pulling eagerly. “Pull with all your might, we got him!”
shouted one of the guards. They heard Hare laughing again. “So you think you got me.
Are you sure it’s me and not perhaps a root?” sniggered Hare with contempt. The
animals felt disappointed but decided to try again. Again they felt the stick hooking
something. They heard Hare crying painfully. “Ouch! ouch! ouch! you are killing me!”

282
The animals pulled with all their might once more until the hook snapped. All those
pulled fell to the ground as though struck by lightning. They realised Hare was only
acting and that they had once again hooked a root! Hare laughed so much as if he
could see them.

The animals quickly found another hooked stick. Hare continued making fools of them.
Each time they caught him he will pretend they have caught a root. Whey the catch a
root he would pretend they caught him. In the meantime, he was trying to dig the hole
further so that he is not caught.

The sun was very hot and by now the animals were so hot and sweating and very
thirsty. Hunger was also killing them as they had nothing eaten the whole day. They
had been dealing with Hare since early in the morning. They decided to take a break.
As they were resting they saw Hare jump out of a hole only a short distance from the
one they had been trying to pull him out of. This one he had dug himself from inside
as his escape route. They were shocked and angry! They did not know what to do with
this trickster anymore. The end.

Folktale 17. Ngebulima bemphisi (The Hyena’s stupidity)

Bhiya,1993:47

A long, long time ago Jackal and Hyena were best friends. They were always together.

Hyena had a girlfriend who he had already promised to marry. Poor Hyena did not
know that his friend was not happy about this because Jackal wished that Hyena’s
girlfriend was his! Jackal now started visiting Hyena’s future in-laws. One day while he
was visiting them, Hyena’s fiancée also arrived. Jackal was very happy about this and
told her, “Oh, that foolish friend of mine, Hyena, let me tell you what a fool he is.”

Hyena’s girlfriend was confused now because she always saw the two of them
together. She said, “Jackal, why are you talking badly about your friend? What do you
think he is going to do to you if I tell him?” Jackal said he did not care because what
he had said were truths that the girlfriend did not know about Hyena. He went on to
say what annoys him is Hyena’s stupidity. He also said that Hyena was his horse.

283
The girlfriend was very angry to hear this about her fiancée. This meant that she did
not like to be in love with a foolish animal because the other animals were going to
laugh at her. She was very troubled and said, “I do not know when Hyena will come
this way. I want to ask him if it true that he is your horse Jackal.”

Before the sun went down Hyena came to visit at his in-laws to be. He found his
girlfriend very sad. When he tried to talk to her she ignored him. She finally got some
courage and asked him, “Hyena, is what I heard from Jackal true?” Hyena replied,
“What is it that you heard from my friend?” He smiled because he did not think that his
friend would actually gossip about him. He thought that they were true friends. He kept
quiet for a short time while his girlfriend told him everything that Jackal had said Then
he said, “I did not fight with my friend, what would make him speak badly about me?”
Hyena did not know what to say or do. He left and went straight back home.

Jackal started groaning while Hyena stood outside the door waiting for him to open the
door. Hyena stood at the door patiently while Jackal’s groaning grew louder. Hyena
heard some, “E! e! e!” This would die down a bit and start again, “E! e! e! Yoh! My
friend I am in so much pain. I am very, very sick, I can’t even move an inch,” said
Jackal.

Hyena just stood there not saying anything. One could see that he was getting angry.
After a while he said, “Jackal, I do not care about you being sick. All I want is that you
open the door for me!” Jackal went slowly to open the door. Now he was groaning
terribly, you would think he was about to die. As the door opened they looked each
other right into the eye.

Hyena did not even greet his friend but asked, “What did you say to my fiancée?”
Jackal answered, “Hyena isn’t she your fiancée? Where could I have seen her? What
is it that I could have said to her?” Jackal pretended to cry. “I thought you are my friend
and you are here to see me because I am sick,” lied Jackal. He started groaning once
again. Hyena interrupted his groaning by suggesting that they go and see his fiancée
so that he may get the truth. He asked Hyena if he could carry him on his back because
he would not be able to walk. He continued groaning and crying. Poor Hyena agreed

284
because he really wanted the truth. Jackal asked if he could rather sit on a horse
saddle instead of being carried like a child. Hyena had no problem with that. Jackal
complained again that he was scared of falling and requested that Hyena be saddled
fully like a horse so that he may have the reins to hold onto. Hyena also had no problem
with that. Jackal thought that he must also have a little whip, but he realised that he
must not say anything to Hyena because he will probably not be ok with that.

Jackal secretly got himself the whip and hid it under his arm. Now Hyena really looked
like Jackal’s horse. Jackal was busy nagging Hyena that he must walk faster so that
they will reach their destination quicker. He was just hurrying to prove that Hyena was
foolish. They finally arrived. Hyena’s fiancée came to the gate to open it for them. The
other family members hid themselves after seeing this.

Jackal was so overjoyed when he saw Hyena’s fiancée. He even pulled out the whip
and whipped him as one does to his horse. Hyena jumped because of the pain. Jackal
pulled the reins so that he may stop. Jackal pulled the reins so hard that out of pain
Hyena walked only on one side while his feet on the other side would be lifted up. This
really amused Jackal. Jackal then made Hyena go straight to his fiancée as though he
(the horse) was going to walk over her. The girl quickly jumped to the side. She had
never seen such a thing! Jackal then said to the girl, “You see, was I telling you a lie
then?” He carried on and said, “You see, my horse is showing off and it is trembling...”

The girl stood there in shock. She wished the ground could just open up and swallow
her. She was thinking deeply. Jackal was now standing next to her and she said,
“Hyena you are just something to played a fool for by any other cleverer animal. I do
not ever want to see you again.” Poor Hyena was so disappointed. He did not
understand what was going on here. He lost his fiancée and the other animals would
not stop laughing at him. The end.

Folktale 18: Logwaja netingwenya. (The Hare and the crocodiles.)

Shongwe, M, 1992: 59

Once upon a time, there was Logwaja (hare) who stayed alone on an island in the
middle of a big river. There were crocodiles in that river. Logwaja was afraid to cross

285
to the other side to go to his family. He knew that crocodiles liked to eat people and
animals who came too close. One day a crocodile came out and invited him to cross
the river so that he may invite some members of his family to come and live with him
on the island. Logwaja agreed with a lot of joy seeing an opportunity to cross the river
to get to the main land. He suggested that the crocodile first go and fetch his family
members as he needed at least ten crocodiles to help him cross over to the main land.
Indeed, the crocodile fetched ten of its members. Logwaja then suggested that they
stand in line so that he could count them properly. Logwaja started counting them
again and regretfully said “I am unable to count you properly and to see those of you
who are standing at the edge of the river clearly. With your permission may I walk on
top of you so that I can count you one by one, starting from the first one to the last one
at the edge of the river?”

The crocodiles did as he requested. They made a big queue to the edge of the river.
Logwaja started his job of counting the crocodiles as he walked over their backs. He
counted them one by one until he reached the last one at the edge of the river. He then
jumped onto the mainland and turned back to the crocodiles. Behold they were waiting
for him to return. Logwaja laughed aloud and told them that they are fools and that he
won’t be returning at all! The crocodiles stood there, disappointed and angry that they
were fooled by such a small animal. Worst of all, he was only one and they were ten.
Logwaja was saved from the crocodiles and continued his journey to his family. They
were amazed and wanted to know how he managed to cross the river. Logwaja
narrated the story to them. From that time Logwaja lived on the mainland and never
return to the island. The end.

Folktale 19: The jackal and the baboon (Imphungutje neMfene).

Shongwe, 1992: 29

Once upon a time, there was a jackal who liked to eat sheep. This posed a serious
problem to a nearby farmer. He decided to place a trap to catch whoever ate his sheep.
Jackal was caught in the trap! He tried to figure a way out but failed. A baboon on his
way somewhere, saw Jackal in the trap. “Oh my friend, you came at the right time. I
was wondering who could help me play this wonderfully funny game!” Jackal called

286
out. Baboon was very glad to be invited to play. “Come over here and enjoy this game
with me” Jackal invited again. Baboon did as he was told. As soon as he went in, he
too was caught in the trap making it possible for Jackal to escape. “What a fool you
are, have you ever seen such a game in your life?” Jackal laughed.

After a while the owner of the farm came and found the baboon in the trap. “Is it you
who have been eating my sheep?” He asked. “Today I am going to teach you a lesson
you will never forget”. Baboon started crying and pleaded not guilty. He explained that
he was deceived by the jackal that was trapped first, and that he is the one who have
been catching the sheep. He was released.

Furiously he went hunting for the baboon. He found him in a tree eating fruit. When
Jackal saw that Baboon was so angry; he came down from the tree and gave him a
delicious fruit. He said, “Take it easy my friend you are so angry that I cannot even
hear what you are saying about what I did wrong. Just enjoy the fruit. I am going to
the toilet my friend and when I get back, I will explain everything.”

The baboon started eating the delicious fruit and his anger subsided. The jackal never
returned. The baboon then went on a journey in search of Jackal. He found him
eventually in a hilly area. Jackal was pushing against a rock at the side of a hill
seemingly to prevent it from falling on him. “Bad luck is after me! Please come and
help me my friend, this rock is falling!” Jackal cried out when he saw the baboon. The
baboon placed his shoulder against the rock and pushed with all his might. “I will go
look for poles to support the rock.” Jackal said and ran away. Baboon also thought of
letting go but he feared that the rock will fall on him. Bushbuck was going to the river
and he when saw baboon holding the rock he asked the reason why. Baboon told him
that the rock is falling and that Jackal went to look for poles to support it. Bushbuck
laughed and told him that Jackal was playing tricks with him and that the rock just
jutted out like that, it was not falling at all.

Furiously the baboon once again went to look for Jackal. He told himself that he would
not be fooled by Jackal any more. He finally found Jackal in a cave. He asked him,
“Who did you leave in the trap, who did you leave holding a rock?” Jackal sighed, “Sit

287
down my friend, have a little rest and a bit of this honey.” Baboon was very happy to
be given honey. Jackal then spoke very calmly and asked that they make peace.
Baboon reluctantly agreed as he did not enjoy conflict at all. Then Jackal went out of
the cave saying he was going to get some butter. He stole a crate of butter from a
nearby farmhouse and brought it back to the cave. They started to eat but Jackal
instructed the baboon not to eat everything but to leave some for tomorrow. Jackal
and Baboon then went outside to stretch out in the sun for a bit. When Baboon fell
asleep, Jackal went back into the cave and ate the rest of the butter. He then smeared
some of the butter that was on his hands on Baboon’s buttocks. Then he woke Baboon
up and accused him of finishing the butter while he – Jackal – was sleeping! Baboon
denied this and Jackal suggested that they lie in the sun with their buttocks up in the
air. The one who has oily buttocks would be the one who ate the butter. Baboon was
found with oil on his buttocks. He once again denied eating the rest of the butter but it
was in vain because Jackal chased him away and accused him of being a cheating
and unreliable friend. The end.

Folktale 20: The monkey and the crocodile (Ingobiyane ne Ngwenya)

Ndlela & Magagula 1994: 58

Once upon a time there was a monkey who lived in a tree next to a big river. The
monkey enjoyed staying there looking for crocodiles who usually came out to bask in
the sun. One day a crocodile saw the monkey sitting in the top of the tree. He worked
out a plan to catch the poor monkey. The crocodile came closer to the monkey and
said, “Good morning my friend Monkey”. The monkey replied, “Good morning
Crocodile.” Then the crocodile said, “Would you like to visit me in the river?” The
monkey replied, “Unfortunately monkeys cannot swim, so I can’t go with you.
Furthermore, I am afraid of your big mouth.” The crocodile then told the money that he
doesn’t have to swim, he can just climb onto Crocodile’s back. The monkey jumped
onto the crocodile’s back and they started swimming. When they were deep into the
river, the crocodile asked Monkey, “Do you know why you are here?” The monkey
replied, “Yes I know, I came to visit you.” The crocodile said, “You know what? My
mother is ill and the witch doctor said she will only get better if she can get a monkey’s

288
heart.” “Oh my friend, you made a big mistake by not telling me while we were on land,”
Monkey quickly replied. “We monkeys don’t carry our hearts with us, that is why our
hearts are so special and good to heal your mother. I left my heart on top of that tree
that I live in. Turn back and let us fetch it.”

The crocodile went back with great hope that he will get the monkeys heart. When
reaching the bank of the river, the monkey joyfully jumped into the tree. He laughed
and said, “Where on earth have seen someone leaving his heart in a tree!” The end.

Folktale 21: Logwaja nendlovu (The hare and the elephant) Simelane &
Thwala, 1991:55

Long time ago, there was a great famine in the land and all the animals were starving.
They held a meeting and discussed what could be done about the situation. One of
the animals suggested that, they till the gardens and plant some vegies so as to eat
and do not starve. The suggestion pleased all the animals. The Elephant was then
the king of the animals. The animals agreed that everyone had to avail himself when
the gardens were tilled. They started tilling. They tilled, and tilled, and tilled and then
someone just shouted, “Where is Elephant?” The Elephant was not there; he was
resting in the shade. Then the animals decided to, keep quiet, because if they talk
about him, they will be in danger and lose their lives since the Elephant is very strong
and mighty

Their plants in the gardens started to grow very well. When they were completely
grown, the Elephant started sneaking at night to eat the plants. There were pumpkins
and other kinds of veggies. The elephant has a big stomach, when he eats, he does
not leave anything. The animals started complaining, they realised were the
Elephant’s, the problem was that they were afraid of the Elephant. The animals
decided to call another meeting in order to resolve the problem. The hare promised to
bring a solution an ordered the other animals to keep quiet and wait for him.

Hare took Chakijane along and off they went to the vegetable garden. Let’s open up
this big pumpkin,” he said. They decided to open the pumpkin, and took out all the
insides. The Hare then took his spear and his drum. He quickly got inside the empty

289
pumpkin and settled down comfortably.” Both Chakijane and the Hare knew that the
Elephant would sneak during the night to steal the vegies from the garden and would
be tempted to eat the big pumpkin. Hare got inside, and Chakijane helped him to
closed the pumpkin and went to hide. The big Elephant came during the night (gidli,
gidli) he entered the garden. The elephant was surprised to see a large pumpkin ready
for him to eat. He swallowed the pumpkin and said, “Hawu! I’ve eaten now, but the
pumpkin is very hard.!” He went on and ate other vegies. The elephant did not realize
that he had swallowed the Hare. He thought he had only eaten a hard pumpkin. Inside
the elephant’s stomach, Hare started playing his drums, “Kudududu, kudududu;
kudududu.” Elephant got frightened and asked himself “Where does the drum sound
come from?” He started running thinking that it was thundering. The drum went on,
“Kudududu, kudududu; kudududu.” The elephant continued turning until the following
morning. Chakijane the observer kept quiet and observed the elephant moving around:
Chakijane’s aim was to see the outcomes of what was happening. The elephant went
on running until he appeared tired and exhausted. He lay down until he gave his last
breath and died. Hawu! Now Hare took his spear and made an opening in the stomach.
He then called the other animals to come and see him out of the elephant’s stomach.
The hare shouted “I’ve killed the Elephant and I am out now. “And so it became clear
that Hare had solved their problem. The animals were very happy. And the hare
became their interim King. The end

Folktale 22: Sonkhofungane naGogo wakhe (Sonkhofungane and his

grandmother) Ndlela and Magagula 1994:42

One upon a time there was a boy who was clever, his name was Sonkhofungane. This
boy had a horse that was given by his father when he was still alive. His father died
when he was still young. When he had died the boy’s mom went back home to her
family and that is where the boy grew up. When he was ten years old the boy’s mother
passed away so he was left with his grandmother. His grandmother had long fingers
when you looked at her hands you could see that she smoked snuff.

Sonkhofungane loved his grandmother dearly and loved his horse too. When he woke
up he used to cut the wood, lit the fire and cook for his grandmother because they lived

290
together with no one else. When he was finished cooking he used to wash his face
and climb on his horse and go to his friends. Every night he would come back early
cut the wood, light the fire and cook supper. After eating at night they went to bed and
grandmother would tell him folktales until she fell asleep.

The boy loved folktales and he always tried to make his grandmother happy so that
she could tell him stories. He used to remove the lice in his grandmother’s hair when
she told him stories. One year there was a famine in their land and the people were
suffering of hunger. Sonkhofungane used to climb his horse and go buy food in a
faraway place. He used to come back with little food and he saw that the situation was
bad.

His grandmother then became very sick and died. In the village where he lived
everyone were burying their families and no one called another because people where
dying every day everywhere. Sonkhofungane saw that his grandmother has died and
did not know what to do. He went into the house and was wondering what he was
going to do. Then he got a plan: He took his he took a sharp weapon and cut off his
grandmother’s head. Then he took he’s grandmothers corpse and put it in a sack
together with the head. He then climbed on his horse with the sack and headed into
town. When he reached town he saw a hotel, he climbed off his horse. In the hotel
people where eating and drinking and spending a lot of money. The boy removed the
body from the sack and placed it outside next to the hotel door. He then placed the
head on top of the corpse so that it looked as if his grandmother was still alive. After
that the boy went into the hotel to the section where they sold food and he bought two
plates of food. One plate he put in front of him and the other he told the waiter to take
outside so that his grandmother can eat. Then the waiter went and called out to the
grandmother. When he saw that the she was not moving he tried shaking her until her
head fell down. When the waiter saw it he got a big fright! He went into the hotel he
saw Sonkhofungane eating and told him what had happened.

Sonkhofungane became angry and said he want his grandmother the ways she was
because his was still alive when he was outside. This caused a stir in the building

291
Sonkhofungane’s eyes were red you could see he was very angry. This became a
huge story and all the people wanted to call the owner of the hotel. Sonkhofungane
wanted to go to the police the owner said he mustn’t go to the police because it would
cause harm to the hotel’s reputation. He asked how it would be if he gave him eight
thousand rand and the boy agreed. The owner took his bag and gave the boy money.
Sonkhofungane took the money and his grandmother’s body, got on his horse and
went away. When he got home he hid the money and buried his grandmother. The
following morning, he asked his friend to visit him. He’s friend came to visit him and he
showed his friend the amount of money he had. When he’s friend asked where he got
the money, he laughed and he told him that in this world you need to be clever not
stupid. He told the friend that he killed his grandmother and sold her in town.

He’s friend listened and was surprised that anyone would buy a dead body.
Sonkhofungane told his friend that when he kills his grandmother his must put her in
his car and go sell her in town. His friend then said that he won’t just kill one old person
but ten so he can get eighty thousand rand. When he reached home he killed ten old
people. He took the old corpses and put them in his car. The next morning, he went to
town to the bus terminal where there always were a lot of people. He then asked, “Who
wants a corpse?” He noticed a couple of policemen coming towards him and he
quickly got into the car and drove away. When he got to Sonkhofungane’s house he
asked why the policemen gave him a problem.

Sonkhofungane shook his head and told him that he shouldn’t have run away because
policemen are the ones that deal with corpses. He told his friend to go back and fetch
the money. His friend went back to the police and when they saw him coming they
asked how they could help him. They told him to enter the office. When he told them
about the corpses that he came to sell they laid a charge of murder against him and
locked him in jail. When Sonkhofungane heard about his friend he laughed as his
friend’s stupidity. He carried on and spent his money and became an important person.
Where he lived he was respected by the elders too. The end.

292
Folktale 23: Lobuhle (Lobuhle) Ndlela and Magagula 1994:14

Once upon a time, there was a family who lived in a beautiful white house. In that place
there were ogre houses too. It was known that the ogres ate human beings. A family
decided to relocate to another place across the river. The girl named Lobuhle
disagreed with the relocation and asked her parents to allow her to stay behind. The
parents agreed and the mother commanded the girl not to open the door for any one.

The mother would come in the morning and in the afternoon checking on the safety of
her child and to bring her food. One of the ogres noticed that the girl was alone since
the mother came in and out every day. The ogre listened to what she says to the girl
every day.

One day the ogre decided to come and knock at the door pretending to be Lobuhle’s
mother. The girl refused to open because she could hear that the voice is not her
mother’s voice. The ogre was disappointed. He went back to his house to practice and
prepare his voice for the next attempt. He knocked on the door again but still his voice
was still not convincing to the girl. He went back and asked for assistance from a witch
doctor who told him to swallow a hot metal and went back to the girl’s house. This
time his voice was convincing and the girl opened the door. The ogre quickly caught
her and put her into a big sack and went away. On his way the ogre decided to enter
into a certain house to get Umcombotsi (African beer). He was given Umcombotsi and
he got very drunk. The owner of the house heard the girl crying and opened the sack.
He found that it was Lobuhle and took her home. After taking Lobuhle he took the ogre
to a hut and burned him. The end.

Folktale 24: Tinyamatane Nemphungutje. (The animals and the jackal)

Mkhatjwa, Masoka, Maseko, and S Mazibuko. 2015:49

Once upon a time, there were animals big and small that lived together as family. They
gathered and agreed that they should go and hunt so that they can get meat because
they were hungry. The hunt was successful and they went back home with a lot of
meat.

293
When they returned, they decided to cook all the meat in one go. After every one was
full, they left some meat to eat in the following days. In the middle of the night,
Mphungutje sneaked out and ate some of the meat while other animals were asleep.
After eating the meat, Mphungutje smeared fat in Hyena’s buttocks so that it would
seem that Hyena was the culprit who stole the meat. He did this for some days until all
the meat was finished. When the animals saw that the meat was no longer there, they
called a meeting to find the culprit. In the meeting Mphungutje was talking more than
all the animals. He made a suggestion that they should all bend so that they may check
for the culprit. He told them that the culprit will be identified by the fat in his buttocks.
They all agreed to bend and they examined one another, Unfortunately Hyena was the
one who had fat in his buttocks.

Mpungutje was the one who exclaimed and commanded that Hyena be killed. Hyena
tried to defend himself, and cried for his life but it was all in vain. He was killed and
was also cooked and eaten by all the animals to replace the meat that was lost. The
end.

Folktale 25: Chakidze Nempunzi (the Mongoose and the bushbuck)

Ncongwane & Ncongwane, 1992 :65

Long time ago, there was a Bushbuck who gave birth to three babies. She needed
someone to look after them as she had to hoe the fields. Fortunately, she got Chakidze
(Mongoose) to look after her children. Chakidze, agreed that he will perfectly look after
them.

The following morning Bushbuck got up and went to hoe the fields while the babies
stayed with Chakidze. In Bushbuck’s absence, Chakidze killed one of the Bushbuck’s
babies, cooked it and ate it, leaving some of the meat for Bushbuck. By midday mother
Bushbuck returned and asked Chakidze to bring the babies as she wanted to feed
them. Chakidze gave Bushbuck the meat and politely said, “Eat this meat of a young
rabbit. I just killed it here near the house.” Chakidze dished out the left overs of the
baby Bushbuck’s meat he kept and gave it to mother Bushbuck who ate it because
she was hungry. Chakidze had hidden the other babies in high grass far away from

294
the Bushbuck. He immediately went out, fetched one of the babies and brought it to
mother Bushbuck to be fed. When it was satisfied, he took it back and brought the
other one in, again when this too was well fed he took it back to the hiding place. There
was no longer a third child, he decided to bring back the first one. Bushbuck asked him
the reason why the child was already satisfied? Chakidze told her that he gave them
some food while Bushbuck was away. Mother Bushbuck was happy and not realizing
the trick, since all Bushbuck’s babies looked the same. The following day Bushbuck
got up and went to the fields as usual. Just after she left, Chakidze killed the second
baby and only one was left now. He cooked it and ate, while leaving some for mother
Bushbuck. Late in the afternoon Bushbuck returned to feed her babies. She asked
Chakidze to bring the babies. Chakidze again gave him some meat to eat telling her
that it was a rabbit’s meat. Chakidze dished out the meat and gave it to mother
Bushbuck who ate not realising anything. He went off and fetched the child for the
Bushbuck to feed. This was the only one left. Chakidze brought it back and
immediately the mother said, “Hawu, Chakidze, how is it that the baby is satisfied
already?” Chakidze replied that they are all fed for that day while he took the baby
and pretended to fetch the third one. He returned with the same child. Mother
Bushbuck was happy to see her children well fed for the day.

The next day mother Bushbuck got up early and went to the fields. As usual Chakidze
killed the last baby, cooked it and ate it, and leaving some for Bushbuck. Late in the
afternoon mother Bushbuck returned from the fields. Chakidze pleaded that mother
Bushbuck must eat first, as he dished out the meat; Bushbuck ate and she was
satisfied. Chakidze got up and quickly went to stand far away from Bushbuck. Mother
Bushbuck asked Chakidze to bring her babies so that she may suckle them.” Chakidze
proudly said, “I am Chakidze, the blower of the whistle. This woman is stupid: she kept
on eating her own babies and then wanted them from me.” Mother Bushbuck went to
look for her children in the long grass where they have been hidden, only found that
there were no babies. Chakidze ran away with mother Bushbuck at his heels. When
she was about to catch up with him, Chakidze saw a small hole and quickly
disappeared into it. Mother Bushbuck tried to get into the hole, but in failed as it was
far too small for her. She sweared that she will fix Chakidze, and sat there so that he

295
may not come out and starve to death. The Bushbuck sat beside the hole for days.
When Chakidze tried to get out, he saw the Bushbuck waiting for him and turned back
After some days poor Bushbuck was hungry and decided to go. She took some
branches and placed it over the hole so that Chakidze would see the shadow of the
branches and think it was the shadow of Bushbuck still waiting for him to come out and
turn back. The end.

Folktale 26: Emantfombatane lamatsatfu. (The three girls) Mavuso, M.P.

1993

Once upon a time there were three girls who were friends. One day they decided to go
and swim. Two girls went ahead of the other one. When they reached the river, they
took off their fringe skirts and hid them under the sand. When the other girl came she
asked, “My friends, where did you put your clothes?” They answered, “We threw them
in the river.” The girl asked them several times but they told her the same story until
she believed that they were telling the truth. She threw her skirt in the river.

The girls swam for a long time and then decided to go home. The two girls took their
skirts from the sand and wore them. When the third girl asked why they lied to her,
they told her that they do not care. They asked “What did you think you will be wearing
when you go home?” When they reached home, they were asked about the other girl
but they lied that the girl went to visit her uncle. The naked girl went down following
the rivers and dams looking for her fringe skirt. She asked the rivers, dams, and pools
about her fringe skirt. She also asked all but without success. Crocodiles and frogs
were also asked but nobody knew. Then she met a woman who asked her to leak
mucous from her eyes. The old lady promised the girl that after leaking the mucous,
she would get her skirt. She took her inside the river and asked the frog to take her
home.

The frog took her home. The frog wanted to be given ten cows before he gave them
their child. The girl was more beautiful than all the girls in the village. Her parents were
very happy to see her again. The end.

296
Folktale 27: Logwaja nelibhubesi (The lion and the hare) Ndlela BMB
&Magagula S M,1994

Once upon a time, there was Logwaja who was hungry indeed. He went wandering
about the bushes in search of something to eat. On his way, his nose caught the smell
of meat. He stood and raised his nose high in order to determine where the smell came
from and he went to the direction of that place until he arrived at an open land. To his
surprise he arrived at King Lion’s house! The lion was working, thatching his home.
Logwaja saw a fire and on the fire there was a pot boiling and full of meat. This
obviously meant that the nice smell of meat was coming from that big pot. He
swallowed his saliva.

“Greetings, my Father” said Logwaja. King Lion turned and looked at Logwaja and
said, “Is that you, my little boy?” Logwaja answered, “It is me my Father. It is me, your
Excellence! A traveller’s stomach is not very large but it is small like a bird’s kidney. I
shall thank you when I have eaten enough, Father.” The lion laughed very loud and
said: “You are always like this; you never change even a single day you are always
looking for delicious food. Come and help me in my work.” Logwaja replied, “My king,
it is not that I came here for food, but I was just greeting you my King. In fact, when a
person greets, he speaks like that. This is why I said that a traveller’s stomach is not
huge.”

The lion said, Logwaja do you expect me to believe what you are saying? Forget about
your small stomach and come over and help me here.” Logwaja went to help the lion
while his heart was not in his job but rather with the boiling pot over there. His saliva
kept on dripping, dripping and dripping. After working for a long time, King Lion said,
“Let us just have a rest, my little boy. I can see that my pot of delicious meat is ready.”
The lion went to the fire and took the pot out, while Logwaja kept swallowing his saliva.
The lion uncovered the pot and he took out the meat and placed it on the tray. He sat
down and began to eat alone while hungry Logwaja was watching. The lion chose all
the fat pieces of meat and ate them and threw the lean meat and the bones to Logwaja.
The lion finished all the fat meat. Logwaja’s heart was very sore, since he had only
lean pieces and bones. As from that day onwards, the lion cooked his meat daily and

297
did the same to Logwaja. Every day Logwaja helped the lion and the lion ate all the fat
meat while Logwaja ate the lean meat and bones.

In few days they started to thatch the house with grass. The lion worked on top of the
house and Logwaja volunteered to work inside. Unfortunately, the lion’s tail was
hanging down inside the roof. When Logwaja saw the tail, he was very happy and said,
“This is my chance to fix this stingy lion!” He tied the lion’s tail to the middle pole of the
house while the lion was working outside the house and he did not notice anything. He
took it lightly and thought it was flies troubling him on the tail as usual. He went on
thatching the grass roof. When they were done, the lion heard a noise as if there was
someone opening his pot. He shouted to Logwaja and asked, ‘‘What’s going on there?
Who is there, touching my pots?” Logwaja answered, “No one!” While taking the tray
and dishing up the fat meat. The lion heard again and asked again, “What’s going on
there? Who is taking my tray as if he were the king?” Again Logwaja answered, “No
one!” The lion then saw him and he was very angry and roared strongly but could not
move. He jumped quickly to catch Logwaja but he was stuck on top of the roof. The
lion felt caught by his tail while Logwaja, laughed vigorously and feeding himself with
meat and he asked, ‘‘Who was fed with lean meat and bones by you?” Logwaja chose
the fat meat and continued eating. He ate until he finished all the meat. Logwaja did
not give the lion even a single bone or lean meat. After Logwaja had finished the meat,
he left the lion on the roof and it remained there and starved to death. The end.

Folktale 28: Sikhova naTsekwane (The owl and the Lightning Bird)
Ndlela BMB &Magagula S M,1994

Once upon a time there was a bird called Tsekwane who made it a habit to look at
himself in the water. It happened that there was a drought where he lived. He decided
to go to a faraway place where there is water just to do his daily habit. He took the long
journey without keeping his house in order. He left his chicks in a nest that is attached
in a broken branch. He did not ask anyone to look after his chicks. Tsekwane took a
long time to come back, while he was away a leopard came and ate Tsekwane’s
vulnerable chicks. When he came back, he blamed everybody for not taking care of
his chicks. A prominent target was his friend Sikhova. He fought with Sikhova until their

298
friendship came to an end. From then on Sikhova would hunt during the night and
Tsekwane would hunt during the day. The end.

299
CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE

300
301