See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372366131

Kiribati-English Dictionary Project (KEDP): June 2023 Project Report

Article · June 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 80

1 author:

Tobias Leonhardt
Universität Bern
3 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tobias Leonhardt on 14 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Kiribati-English Dictionary Project (KEDP)
Project Report
Tobias Leonhardt

June 30, 2023

Kiribati-English Dictionary Project (KEDP)
Project Report

Tobias Leonhardt
Center for the Study of Language and Society, University of Bern, Switzerland

EMRU Report Executive Summary

Kiribati has been under British administration for a century but experienced only little
Submission Date: exposure to the English language. While contact with foreigners has increased since the
30.06.2023 Second World War, the now independent republic remains one of the least visited countries
in the world. Over the years, a few Kiribati dictionaries have been created, notably by
missionaries or the US Peace Corps. However, most of them are not targeted towards the
I-Kiribati people, explain rather than translate Kiribati expressions, and remain practically
inaccessible as they are in print-form or online-only.
The Kiribati-English Dictionary Project (KEDP) is an innovative solution tailor-made for
Kiribati which adequately addresses these issues. Its key characteristics are the following:

A fully bilingual offline smartphone application as principal output

Smartphones are now widely used, although often without internet credit. The
KEDP app is fully bilingual, fully functional offline and available at no cost, thus
offering great degree of accessibility.

Approximately 40’000 Kiribati-English word pairs presented as 1:1 translations

Previous dictionary resources have been processed so that a Kiribati word or
expression is presented with its English counterpart, and vice/versa. This structure
ensures that resources are meaningful and useful to both foreigners and locals.

Community involvement and continuous development

Not only are local institutional partners such as the Kiribati Ministry of Education
collaborators of the project, the app allows all users to continuously collaborate on
the development of the KEDP resources, resulting in sustainability and longevity.

While certainly useful to foreigners, the KEDP is primarily geared towards the Kiribati
community. The project is a celebration of the unique linguistic context and promotes the
Kiribati language, the English language, as well as the Kiribati-English variety. The project
fares under the principle: Irouia I-Kiribati ao ibukiia I-Kiribati (with and for the people of
Kiribati).

Acknowledgments
The KEDP is related to a PhD project on the English language in Kiribati (Leonhardt, 2022). It is realised as an
EMRU project (Environmental Mobility Research Unit), generously funded by the Embassy of Switzerland in
Australia, and its development is coordinated with the Kiribati Ministry of Education (MoE). I wish to express my
sincere gratitude to EMRU, the Embassy, and to the Kiribati institutions for their support and their assistance.

Page 1
Contents
1 Language history of Kiribati ............................... 2
2 Dictionary history of Kiribati ............................... 5
3 Kiribati-English Dictionary Project (KEDP) ........ 7
4 Conclusions ..................................................... 11
5 References ...................................................... 11
1 Language history of Kiribati
Kiribati is comprised of 33 scattered islands, located
roughly where the dateline intersects the equator
The 17 islands in the West form the Gilbert group,
the eight in the middle the Phoenix group, and the
eight in the East the Line group. The islands are thin
and low-lying atolls (with one exception) with a
combined land mass of only 810 square kilometers;
the waters over which they are dispersed, however,
are a staggering 3.5 million square kilometers.
Throughout their history, the islands only ever
experienced scarce contact with foreigners. At least
in comparative terms, this still holds true today.
Settlement and early contacts
Settlement began approximately 4’000 to 5’000
years ago by people from the Southeast Asian region
travelling through other Micronesian islands,
probably from what are today the Caroline and
Marshall Islands (Macdonald, 2001, p. 1; Talu et al.,
1979, p. 11). Samoans arrive somewhere around
1400 AD (Grimble, 1933; Maude, 1963). Not long
after, Europeans first sighted Kiribati islands. A first
wave of explorers sailed under the Spanish flag,
between 1521 and 1606, a second wave sailed
mostly but not exclusively under the British, between
1765 and 1828. Neither seemed interested in
stopping let alone making contact. It was only after
the second wave of explorers that contacts began,
very slowly, to increase in number – with the arrival
of whalers, traders and beachcombers. It is worth
noting that the whalers hardly ever went ashore but
conducted most of their trading business on the
ships (Macdonald, 2001, p. 17). There were,
however, a small number of seamen who asked to
be discharged or simply deserted ship and set foot
on the islands. Maude and Leeson (1965) state that
there must have been at least 16 by 1841 and 50 in
the 1860s, and that these beachcombers generally
assimilated to the island customs in as many ways
as possible, also for the sake of their safety (p. 401).
Most of them moved on after a year or two and only
few remained for longer so that there was “a constant
turnover in the membership of these small European
settlements, few of which ever had more than a
dozen members at any given time” (Macdonald,
Page 2
2001, p. 21). Vice versa, there were Kiribati islanders
who served on board whaling vessels. They
acquired cultural knowledge and even English, little
though it may have been, so that they became
cultural and linguistic mediators upon returning.
Their wondrous stories were told in the village
mwaneaba and, among other things, helped to
generate a desire for learning English (Pannu, 1993,
pp. 55-56; Talu et al., 1979, p. 32).
Labour trade
Labour trade in the 19th century certainly intensified
contact. Especially at first, as early as 1847, many
were hunted down like game, threatened with arms,
raided at night or after their canoes had been
forcefully capsized, lured on ships on the pretence of
trade opportunities and then driven off either
immediately or after they had fallen asleep,
kidnapped, or made deceitful and false promises to,
of bibles, religious instruction, or simply food
(Macdonald, 2001, pp. 58-59). Later, “a desire to
escape local warfare or communal obligations, a
sense of adventure or wanderlust, a desire to earn
money with which to acquire the products of Western
technology” as well as famine (Munro & Firth, 1987,
p. 27-28) drove islanders to sign up for labour on
overseas farms, mines and plantations. It is
estimated that around 9’400 (Munro & Firth, 1987) or
even 10’500 (Macdonald, 2001) terms were served
by Kiribati islanders (both numbers, however,
represent absences rather than individuals: there
were a few I-Kiribati who served on two or even three
separate occasions). Towards the end of the 19th
century, the labour trade in the Kiribati islands
became increasingly restricted due to regulations
imposed by a new colonial ruler.
Missionaries
In contrast to temporary visitors like whalers, traders,
beachcombers and others who spent a finite amount
of time on the islands, Christianity and foreigners
who came to promote it eventually gained a foothold
and remained. Besides religious services, secular
education was introduced and languages other than
Kiribati served as medium of instruction. Peculiarly,
however, English was not prioritised, at least not by
early missionaries.
The first mission to arrive in Kiribati was the
Protestant American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions (ABCFM), in 1852. Its missionary
was Hiram Bingham who made seminal linguistic
contributions such as a bible translation, a Kiribati
writing system, and a Kiribati dictionary – albeit not
the first to be published. Somewhat ironically, he was
little interested in preaching or in teaching the
English language. Upon receiving criticism from
locals, who did desire learning it, he wrote:
I do not think it at all probable that English will ever
be generally read or spoken by the [I-Kiribati].
Their islands are such wretched abodes for human
beings that white men will never go to dwell in
numbers among them. (Reported in Rennie, 1985,
p. 298)
By the 1890s, there was not enough money,
manpower or success. Rennie (1985) poignantly
states: “the mission was doomed” (p. 284). In 1917,
the ABCFM transferred their work to the London
Missionary Society (LMS) and withdrew from
Kiribati.
The LMS had arrived in 1871 and played an
important role in establishing a basic level of literacy.
Very early on, there were classes held for one or two
hours every day except on Sundays. Doubtlessly,
the LMS was more active and efficient than the
ABCFM in pursuing educational goals, but it also had
the advantage of relying on the biblical works already
translated and prepared by Bingham and his
fellowship. Otherwise, however, the language of
church and school was Samoan (Macdonald, 2001,
p. 42).
The Catholic Sacred Heart Mission (SHM) arrived
in 1888 and was able to expand rapidly, so that by
the late 1930s, 38’622 people had been baptised,
approximately half of the Kiribati population was
Catholic, and almost all islands had a cement church
– paid for through the islanders whose contribution
was about a year’s worth of income (Sabatier, 1977,
p. 290). One reason for this success was the
mission’s focus on education. From the outset,
classes were just as much a part of the daily
structure as prayers. Sabatier (1977) describes that
formal instruction served as a means to an end as it
could lead to material profits as well as prestige: he
says there was a “mad stampede for knowledge” (p.
186). It is noteworthy that, although expressed in a
seemingly much warmer tone, this quote is eerily
similar to Bingham’s assessment of the uselessness
of the English language in Kiribati. It is in accordance
with this stance, then, that the mission generally only
produced books and other materials in the Kiribati
language.
British rule
The Western Pacific Order of 1877 as well as the
Treaty between Great Britain and Germany relating
to the Demarcation of the Spheres of Influence of
1886 both included the Kiribati islands in territories
thusly claimed by the British, probably very much
unbeknownst to the indigenous island communities.
A British protectorate was officially declared in 1892,
although actual interest in Kiribati hardly existed: an
Page 3
American trader and German labour recruiters made
it known to the German government that the islands
needed to remain in their control, which resulted in
pressure by the German government on the British,
who opted for the declaration of a protectorate to
strengthen their alliance with Germany which was
needed in Egypt against the French; also, a
protectorate rather than annexation implied lower
costs and less supervision and left more room to
withdraw again later. The British did not have a
substantial interest in the islands themselves:
There were no plantations to protect, no labour re-
cruiting of any consequence to maintain or regu-
late, and no problems of disorder which might oth-
erwise have invited imperial intervention. The
group was strategically unimportant. (Munro &
Firth, 1986, pp. 63-65)
The proclamation of the protectorate on the islands
themselves also allowed for a complete survey of
foreigners present in the Gilbert group at that time: a
mere 77, mostly British, American, German, Chinese
and French (reported in Pannu, 1990, p. 21). The
Ellice Islands, today Tuvalu, were subsumed under
the same protectorate and later colony and officials
such as resident commissioners and district officers
were appointed. However, the British had little desire
in time- or money-consuming governance and fared
with a “policy of minimal development”, as
Macdonald (2001) labels it. Therefore, the number of
officials present in Kiribati was only between 3 and
17 between until after the Second World War.
Under British control, Kiribati experienced a
second phase of labour trading in the 20th century.
I-Kiribati were brought to Banaba and Nauru to
phosphate mines or to Teeraina and Tabuaeran to
coconut plantations; women were employed as
domestic servants for colonial staff. Once again,
famine drove many islanders into the labour trade.
Being in the Pacific short periods only and without
social or financial incentives, Europeans did not
make any attempt to learn their labourers’
languages. Communication between them and I-
Kiribati must have taken place in English. Pannu
therefore concludes that the phosphate island
Banaba played an important role for the spread of
English and functioned as “a significant centre in the
provision of linguistic contact” (1993, p. 65).
Second World War
Located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, the
Kiribati islands were of immense strategic interest for
both the allied forces and Japan. From the outbreak,
New Zealander coats watchers were stationed on
Kiribati islands, tasked to report sigthings of ships
and planes. Pannu (1993) states that the
deployment of these coast-watchers led to “the most
significant and far-reaching contact with the English
language” up to that point (p. 66). Although there
were only 30, and no more than three on an island,
he argues that their influence was felt throughout the
atolls as there was close contact between them and
the Gilbertese which led to the introduction of novel
habits, products, clothes and also – native – accent
(p. 67).
On-site warfare started in early 1942. Wherever
the Japanese went, the coast watchers were
captured, imprisoned and sometimes killed. Attacks
culminated in the infamous Battle of Tarawa in
November 1943, a violent clash of approximately
5’000 Japanese and 18’600 American soldiers which
was won by the latter (McQuarrie, 2012, p. 148).
Warfare affected the local communities greatly.
McQuarrie (2012) presents the following estimates:
approximately 730 Gilbertese died, another 321
were wounded; moreover, 60’000 trees and 2’000
babai (taro) pits were cleared for airfields on
Butaritari, Tarawa and Abemama alone (pp. 197-
198) – these numbers exclude events like bombings,
shellings, or the burning of vegetation on Kuria to
capture the coast-watchers. Albeit very forcefully, I-
Kiribati got into closer contact – also closer linguistic
contact – with foreigners not representing the colonial
government. Americans were experienced as
generous with food and medicine, and offered labour
and trading possibilities the likes of which were
unprecedented. I-Kiribati were employed in great
numbers and on almost all islands, for construction
work, laundry, handicrafts and other purposes; the
Americans often ordered thousands of items, for
instance sleeping mats for their troops, and paid well
(McQuarrie, 2012, p. 180). It is unsurprising that at
least some Gilbertese developed a desire to be
administered by the US government and even
organised a petition to be sent to Washington.
Towards independence
Following the Second World War, the separation of
the colony was desired by both of its constituents,
the Gilbert islands (today Kiribati) and the Ellice
islands (today Tuvalu), two ethnically, culturally and
linguistically distinct peoples that the British had
forced together without allowing for a common
identity to form. Ellice islanders found themselves
disadvantaged as services began to be centralised
to Tarawa in Kiribati; Gilbert islanders were
discontent with the disproportionate number of Ellice
islanders in important positions and their amount of
political influence. Separation was achieved in 1975;
Tuvalu became independent in 1978; Kiribati a year
later.
Kiribati is now a republic, with a president and a
single chamber parliament comprising 35 members
and representing all inhabited islands. The roles of
Page 4
both the head of government and head of state are
vested in the president; no political association to
Britain remains. Kiribati’s constitution mandates that
it is published in both Gilbertese and English but
states the following:
The provisions of this Constitution shall be pub-
lished in a Kiribati language text as well as this
English text, but in the event of any inconsistency
between the two texts this English text shall pre-
vail. (Kiribati Independence Order, ch. X, section
127)
While providing very little linguistic policy, the
constitution nevertheless is an important factor for
the overall great prominence the English language
has by giving it the same legal status as Gilbertese –
or even more.
Language education
Early educators – the missions – focussed on the
passing on of religious contents in the Kiribati
language or even Samoan. They generally took a
very condenscending stance toward educating I-
Kiribati and did not forsee or validate the need for
English language teaching. The colonial government
only became active around the 1920s, when
government-affiliated positions that needed to be
filled with locals and a certain level of English thus a
requirement.
During the Second World War, virtually all
missionaries and government officials had left and
education essentially halted – some schools were
also completely obliterated. Following the war,
foreign presence increased, education resumed and
several schools, including vocational training
centres, were added. However, numerous schemes
included sending I-Kiribati overseas for training while
local expansion projects were often short-lived.
Many policies were introduced in the post-war as
well as post-independence era, drafted almost
exclusively by foreigners that did not heed policy
reviews: problems relating to finances, geographical
distances, infrastructure, training of teachers and
others in the educational sector, deployment of
expertise, teaching materials, cultural factors, and
policy-making were too often not adequately
addressed or simply ignored. On paper, English
received gradually more importance but neither the
educational system nor its educators were equipped
or qualified to, for instance, make English a medium
of instruction at primary school levels. Current
policies pay more attention to the local language and
introduce English more gradually, but inadequate
acknowledgment of the local reality and the ignoring
of local expertise unfortunately prevail.
Language history summed up
Very little exchange took place between the first
Europeans to set sight on the islands between 1521
and 1828. Therefore, Kiribati’s contact history is
comparitively very recent and not intense: labour
trade opportunities meant increased contact
between I-Kiribati and other ethnicities and
languages, but the contact situations were clearly
not geared towards fostering such exchange;
missionaries by and large preferred the local
language and were vehemently opposed to teaching
English, even though many locals recognised its
usefulness and expressed the desire to learn it; the
British were hardly interested in the Kiribati islands
when they claimed them and only dispatched a few
officials to represent it; during the Second World
War, only a miniscule number of coast watchers
were stationed in Kiribati and contact with Americans
was of, albeit relatively intense, only short-lived;
great strides in education, language education and
specifically English language education were only
achieved after the Second World War and policies
addressed too many problems inadequately. The
result of this recent and unintense contact history is Figure 1: Dictionary excerpt of Bingham (1908).
a generally relatively low English proficiency level.

Sabatier & Olivia (1971)

2 Dictionary history in Kiribati
The Catholic mission was able to build on Bingham’s
important groundwork and published a dictionary on
Bingham (1908) their own (initially, Kiribati-French in 1954, translated
to Kiribati-English in 1971). However, the limitations
Bingham is well-known in Kiribati for being the first noted about Bingham’s work remained the same for
missionary, although he did not achieve for his the publications of the SHM: they were print
mission to become successful. He was a scholar publications with low distribution numbers and I-
with an obsession for translation work. He published Kiribati were once again not those targeted, as the
a bible dictionary, concordance and various thesaurus-like structure prevailed.
commentaries by 1895 (Rennie, 1985, p. 289), and
printed eight editions of a completely translated bible
before his death in 1908 (p. 289). Importantly,
Bingham also produced the first Kiribati-English
dictionary. It was finally published in 1908, but was
already in use by the mission before the turn of the
century. The dictionary was of course only available
in printed form and could not be distributed widely.
Furthermore, its thesaurus-like structure, with
Kiribati expressions being explained in English but
never the other way round, meant that the I-Kiribati
people did not belong to the targeted audience of the
dictionary. For them, it was useless in itself.
Bingham’s contributions were fundamental,
however, for later missionaries as well as linguistic
projects.

Figure 2: Dictionary excerpt of Sabatier and Olivia (1971).

Page 5
US Peace Corps (Trussel, 1979)
Notable changes were only introduced with the
arrival of US Peace Corps volunteers, frequenting
Kiribati between 1973 and the mid-2000s. Prior to Figure 4: Dictionary excerpt of Wright (2015).
their assignment, all volunteers received language
training in Abaokoro, Tarawa; they would be sent out
to work closely with local communities and needed Shortcomings
to be adequately proficient in the local language. For
this language training, the Peace Corps eventually
In summary, the following problems persist in
compiled a Grammar as well as a dictionary, among previous Kiribati dictionaries, often but not always at
other things. Clearly, locals were once again not the
the same time.
target audience of such publications; the thesaurus-
like structure was not changed. In fact, the Peace
1) Linguistic structure: Most dictionaries
Corps dictionary was a compilation of previous
explain Kiribati expressions in another
dictionaries, including of course Bingham (1908) and
language rather than offering translations
Sabatier and Olivia (1971), as well as others that
that work in both directions (from Kiribati to
were more geared towards flora (Goo & Banner,
another language, and from another
1963; Luomala, 1953). Crucially, the Peace Corps
language to Kiribati). This implies the
dictionary was eventually also made accessible
second problem.
online; digitising began in 2010. With this new outlet,
accessibility was drastically but not sufficiently
2) Target audience: Explaining rather than
increased: I-Kiribati certainly were not early adopters
translating Kiribati expressions
of personal computers or online services so that the demonstrates the dictionary authors did not
Peace Corps dictionary remained inaccessible to
intend for their works to be useful for the
most.
people of Kiribati. Rather, they are geared to
foreigners, particularly those who had a
desire or requirement to become more
familiar with the local language. For
foreigners, then, they are language learning
tools; for locals, they are not useful per se.
Figure 3: Dictionary excerpt of the digitised
US Peace Corps resources (Trussel, 1979). 3) Accessibility: Many, especially earlier
dictionaries were published in print form.
Even if they were targeted at I-Kiribati
Newer and lesser known dictionaries people, they would have to be distributed to
the various schools of the 21 inhabited
islands to become accessible, for example.
In the last two decades, there have been a few
Others, especially newer dictionaries are
dictionaries, some also electronic, that were often
available through a website. While computer
the fruits of passion projects of individual people. Not
and internet literacy are on the incline, most
associated with larger institutions like missions or the
I-Kiribati do not freely browse the web or
US Peace Corps, they remained less well-known.
actively search for a specific website. For
Some exhibited an important difference to earlier
the vast majority, Facebook is an entry point
works, however, in that they provided a 1:1 structure
as well as a lens on the world wide web.
with regards to the presentation of Kiribati and
Also, it is smartphones rather than
English words: instead of explaining a Kiribati
computers that are used to go online. And
expression in English, Kiribati words are presented
finally, to go online requires money. The
with the nearest equivalent in the English language;
internet passes offered by the two providers,
this of course meant that English words are
Vodafone and Ocean Link, are expensive
presented with the nearest equivalent in the Kiribati
from a Western perspective, let alone from a
language, too (see for instance Wright, 2015). In
local one.
some examples, website interfaces existed which
allowed for an easy way to search the dictionary
repository, but they have disappeared by now.

Page 6
3 Kiribati-English Dictionary
Project (KEDP)
A new attempt at a dictionary needs to adequately
address the shortcomings identified above.
1) A 1:1 linguistic structure, where a Kiribati
word translates into an English word and
vice-versa, is to be preferred over a
thesaurus-like structure.
background, such descriptions were
omitted. Entries or parts of entries that
served as examples of how expressions are
used were treated equally.
A lot of interesting information is lost in this
process, but it is superfluous for a strictly 1:1
translation. At a later stage in the continuous
KEDP, such information will be added in as
additional information accessible from the
entry card.

2) I-Kiribati are an explicit target group, which
is not only achieved through a 1:1 linguistic
structure of the dictionary repository, but
also by ensuring that any other text –
descriptive texts, instructions, pop-ups, etc.
– is or can be displayed in the Kiribati
language, too.
- When English expressions were deemed
too archaic, they were updated or omitted.
- When missing expressions could be
identified as appropriate translations, they
were added.

3) Understanding what kind of devices are

used, how and how often online services are
consumed, and what role linguistic and
financial factors play is key to the design and
functionality of a new dictionary in order for
it to be truly accessible to I-Kiribati.

Linguistic processing of dictionary

resources
Much like the dictionary of Sabatier and Olivia (1971)
is based in large parts on that of Bingham (1908),
and the Peace Corps dictionary (Trussel, 1979) is
based at least partly on both of these resources, the
KEDP uses the Peace Corps dictionary as principal
source. However, as described above, the original
thesaurus-like structure does not line up with the
requirements of a new dictionary. The intended
format of a KEDP entry is comprised of an
uninflected Kiribati expression with its part of speech Figure 5: Preferred presentation of Kiribati and English
as additional information, and the corresponding expressions, with part of speech information.
uninflected English translation with its part of speech
as additional information.
In order for that format to be achieved, the original
Peace Corps data was heavily processed, which
App and website development
included the following:
The principal outlet of the KEDP is a smartphone
- When multiple English expressions were application programmed within the Ionic 5
used for the description of one Kiribati Framework which allows for the building and
expression, individual entries were created deploying of native Android and Apple iOS apps,
where each English expression formed a among others, with a single code base. Thus, the
separate pair with the given Kiribati Android and Apple versions of the KEDP do not need
expression. to be written and maintained separately, simplifying
app development substantially. The app can be used
- When the English descriptions were not completely offline at all times. On first start-up, the
exclusively of a linguistic manner, for entire dictionary database is initialised. Once this
instance, when they provided cultural process is completed, all dictionary resources –
approximately 40’000 entries – are available offline,

Page 7
which means that they can be searched or used for
exercises in the study corner (see below) without an
internet connection. Going online is only a
requirement when the app is downloaded or
updated, or when user feedback is submitted (see
next section) – none of these actions pose functional
restrictions or render offline use impossible.
Moreover, ensuring that I-Kiribati people are
targeted equally as English-speaking foreigners, the
entirety of the app contents are available in both
languages: on the home screen, users are able to
switch, with one click, the app language displayed in
tabs, titles, prompts, exercise instructions, toasts
(pop-ups presenting short notifications on an event
triggered from within the app), and so on. The app
will always start up with the language setting
previously used; on first start-up, Kiribati is the
default.

Figure 6: App screenshot of the language switch located at the

bottom of the home screen.

An offline smartphone application is the ideal

publication method for new dictionary resources in
Kiribati. In the 2015 census, a third of households
reported to have access to a mobile phone (National
Statistics Office, Ministry of Finance, 2016, p. 150).
At that time, most devices were not smartphones and
only relatively rarely topped up with money to go
online. Since then, smartphones have become easily
accessible and are widely used. What remains is the
fact that most devices are not used as always-online
devices as it is too costly for most to regularly buy
internet credit. The KEDP takes both of these
important factors into account as smartphones are
Figure 7: App screenshot of search results displayed as a list,
the principal target to ensure accessibility to project with part of speech information.
resources and since offline use is not only possible
but non-restrictive in terms of app functionality.
Furthermore, a smartphone app allows for the The study corner is aimed at learning vocabulary,
continuous development of the KEDP resources and that is, existing entries in the dictionary. In a first
community involvement (see next section). step, users choose from pre-made word stacks (one
The app has three main sections: 1) a project tab, or more), on topics such as weather, transportation
2) a dictionary tab, and 3) a study corner. The project or the ocean. The content of individual stacks can be
tab is comprised of mostly static content and viewed during the selection process. Upon selection,
presents information about the KEDP and its app: a users can once again familiarize themselves with the
short history on dictionaries in Kiribati and the origins selected entries, via a table displaying the entries of
of the KEDP, an overview of current app contents, a all selected stacks cummulatively.
roadmap for the project, and technical information. After initial familiarization, three types of
The dictionary tab is where users can search the exercises can be completed with the selected
KEDP repository. Results are listed in a table first, stacks; the exercises with easier tasks are at the top
with Kiribati expressions on the left and the and those with more difficult tasks are towards the
corresponding English expressions on the right; bottom. The first exercise is an introduction game
information about the part of speech are also given, presenting Kiribati and English entries as tiles in
in smaller italic script.

Page 8
randomised order. Users will then have to find all
matching pairs. With this first exercise, users are
introduced gradually to the selected entries. Easier
matches can be completed first, so that for the more
difficult pairs, there are less options to choose from
and a learning effect is likely.
Figure 8: App screenshot of the familiarization game.
The second exercise is completed with entry
cards with one half displayed and one half hidden.
Users can choose to always see the Kiribati half or
the English half, or whether the displayed half is
automatically and randomly selected. In any case,
users are prompted to pick out the correct translation
from three given options. Entry cards will be
displayed at least twice: that is how many times the
correct translation has to be found, before an entry
Page 9
card counts as successfully answered; it will then not
be displayed during the next cycle. Once all entry
cards have been translated correctly twice, the
exercise is complete. Like the introductory game,
this type of exercise still displays the correct
translations as selectable options. Unlike the
introductory game, however, the process of
exclusion may not always be easy, since two
incorrect options are always displayed at random.
Figure 9: App screenshot of the multiple options exercise.
The third exercise is identical to the previous one
with regards to how the entry cards are displayed:
one half revealed, one half hidden. However, no
suggestions are displayed this time. Much like
physical flashcards, users try to remember the
correct translation without additional cues. Also
much like physical flashcards, only the users know
whether they were in fact able to remember the
correct translation. After unveiling the hidden half of
the entry cards, they can rate their experienced
difficulties: hard, medium, easy. All entry cards
remain in the stack and will be displayed repeatedly,
until they were easily answered twice. If answered
truthfully, a learning effect will certainly take place
and users are likely to remember new expressions
outside the context of a smartphone application, too.
Figure 10: App screenshot of the flashcard exercise.
While the principal outlet is a smartphone
application, a KEDP website as well as Facebook
page serve as secondary channels. The website
contains general project information and information
on current developments. Dictionary searches are
Page 10
also possible but results are only presented in a
table; entry cards, the study corner and many
feedback channels that are available in the app are
not present. The Facebook page will be used to
promote the app and communicate news through
regular posts, so as to ensure community
awareness, engagement and overall project
visibility. These two secondary channels are
complementary to the smartphone app and provide
a simplified version of KEDP resources: unlike the
app, a website and Facebook page require an
internet connection and are thus not permanently
accessible to users. The secondary channels have
in common with the app, however, that the contents
published on these outlets will be fully bilingual: with
a “switch language” option on the website, and with
posts in the Kiribati language and a translation into
English on Facebook.
Community involvement
A crucial project pillar is community involvement.
With the KEDP resources processed and the outputs
set up as described above, it essential to ensure the
KEDP is useful now and in the future. EMRU
collaborates with the Kiribati Ministry of Education in
order to achieve that relevant local institutions are
actively included. Early collaborative efforts will
firstly focus on checking the current resources on
correctness and completeness. Secondly, the study
corner will be expanded: currently, the number of
word stacks selectable for exercises is low and
mostly exemplifies how the study corner can be
used; more stacks are to be added and local
counterparts will ensure that the most relevant
entries are chosen. Ideally, word stacks are aligned
with other learning materials currently in use in
Kiribati, so that the app can be used in tandem.
During the completion of these two tasks, the app is
open to a KEDP task force; upon completion, it will
be open to the public without restrictions or
limitations.
Once publicly availalbe, users have the
opportunity to get involved in developing the KEDP
further. To begin with, a general feedback channel is
set up within the app and on the website, in addition
to posts that can be submitted on the Facebook
page. The app offers further, more focussed
feedback channels. If an expression searched by the
user is not found or an error (spelling or other) is
identified, it can be reported from both the table and
the entry card. Feedback reports are collected in a
database object in the background and submitted to
the project server when an internet connection is
established. This ensures that feedback can be
entered in offline mode and submitted potentially a
long time after. The app checks for a connection
when feedback is entered as well as on every start-
up; in both cases, users are prompted to confirm
submission which will use up internet data, minimal
though it is.
Additionally, a new “Community Hub” tab will be
available. Here, users can help to bulk-process
dictionary entries, where such input is needed or
helpful. So far, two areas have been identified where
community help can make a huge difference. Firstly,
there are conflicting Kiribati orthographies when it
comes to the representation of the sound sequences
[ba] and [ma]: they can be written as <ba>, <b’a> and
<bwa>, or <ma>, <m’a> and <mwa> respectively.
Currently, dictionary entries do not use the
apostrophe or <w> variants, which renders such
entries ambiguous as to their pronunciation: <ba>
and <ma> can also be pronounced as [bæ] and [mæ]
respectively. To resolve such ambiguity, a
community tasks invites users to indicate, how
individual <ba> and <ma> syllables found in the
existing dictionary entries are pronounced.
Secondly, vowel length is also not consistently
reflected orthographically: sometimes a long vowel
is represented with only one vowel, sometimes it is
doubled. Again, community feedback can be
collected. In this second case, the entries
themselves do not necessarily need amending, but
vowel length can be provided as additional
information much like the part of speech is presented
now. It is an important goal of collaborative efforts
between EMRU and Kiribati counterparts to create
other opportunities for the public to engage in the
continuous development of the KEDP and its
resources. Of course, involving the Kiribati
community in this manner also serves the goal to
convey a sense of ownership of the project that
concerns the Kiribati language. After all, the KEDP
principle is: Irouia I-Kiribati ao ibukiia I-Kiribati (with
and for the people of Kiribati).
Finally, EMRU and local partners will organize
events to promote the KEDP as a whole, events to
coordinate task forces for specific project tasks, as
well as events on language awareness where the
Kiribati language and dialects, the English language,
and the Kiribati-English variety are promoted. Such
events will foster visibility of project and language
relevant topics and result in increased community
involvement in the continuous development of the
KEDP.
4 Conclusions
Previous dictionaries were of very limited use to the
people of Kiribati as they mostly explain rather than
translate Kiribati words and expressions.
Furthermore, they were in print-form and not widely
distributed in Kiribati, or they are only accessible
online.
Page 11
The Kiribati-English Dictionary Project (KEDP),
while based on previous dictionaries, presents
Kiribati expressions together with their counterpart in
English, achieving a 1:1 translation structure. This
ensures that project resources are meaningful and
useful to I-Kiribati rather than only to foreigners.
Moreover, for the first time, the principal output is a
smartphone application whose contents are fully
bilingual and whose functionalities fully available
offline, making KEDP resources easily and widely
accessible, at no cost. The app allows users to
search dictionary entries to be searched and to
complete language learning exercises in a dedicated
study corner. Importantly, the KEDP focusses on
community involvement and encourages users to
submit feedback on missing or erroneous entries,
and to collaborate on specific community tasks.
Together with local institutional partners such as
the Kiribati Ministry of Education, EMRU continues
to lead the KEDP and will remain actively involved in
its expansion and continuous development, aiming
for sustainability and longevity. This is achieved
through collaboration on specific linguistic tasks and
through the organization of events to promote the
visibility of the project and the unique linguistic
context of Kiribati in general.
5 References
Grimble, A. (1933). Memoir No. 12. The migration of a pandanus
people. As traced from a preliminary study of Food, Food-
traditions, and Food-rituals in the Gilbert Islands. Instalment
No. 2. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 42(4.168), 51-
84.
Goo, Fannie C.C. & Albert H. Banner. (1963). A Preliminary
Compilation of Gilbertese Animal and Plant Names. Hawaii
Marine Laboratory, University of Hawaii.
Kiribati Independence Order 1979. Retrieved from
https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=12228
Leonhardt, T. (2022). English in Kiribati: A historical, linguistic and
sociophonetic report on a Micronesian variety. Faculty of
Humanities, University of Bern. Retrieved from
https://ube.swisscovery.slsp.ch/permalink/41SLSP_UBE/d
23tnh/alma99117258020005511
Luomala, Katharine. (1953). Ethnobotany of the Gilbert Islands.
Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI.
Macdonald, B. (2001). Cinderellas of the empire: Towards a
history of Kiribati and Tuvalu. Suva: Institute of Pacific
Studies, University of the South Pacific.
Maude, H. E. (1963). The evolution of the Gilbertese boti. The
Journal of the Polynesian Society, 72(1), 3-68.
Maude, H. E., & Leeson, I. (1965). The coconut oil trade of the
Gilbert Islands. The Journal of the Polynesian Society,
74(4), 396-437.
McQuarrie, P. (2012). Gilbert Islands in World War Two. Oakland,
CA: Masalai Press.
 Munro, D., & Firth, S. (1986). Towards colonial protectorates: The
case of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. Australian Journal of
Politics & History, 32(1), 63-71.

Munro, D., & Firth, S. (1987). From company rule to consular

control: Gilbert Island labourers on German plantations in
Samoa, 1867-96. The Journal of Imperial and
Commonwealth History, XVI(1), 24-44.

National Statistics Office; Ministry of Finance. (2016). 2015

population and housing census: Volume 1. Bairiki: National
Statistics Office; Ministry of Finance.

Pannu, G. S. (1990). Some reflections on the emergence of the

English language in Kiribati. Journal of Educational Studies,
12(1), 18-28.

Pannu, G. S. (1993). The development of English language

teaching in Kiribati: A critical appraisal, with special
reference to the primary level. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from http://ethos.bl.uk

Rennie, S. J. (1985). In search of souls: The cultural interaction

between Hiram Bingham Jr., the Hawaiians and the
Gilbertese through mission contact 1857-1903.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Canberra: Australian
National University Library.

Sabatier, E. (1977). Astride the equator: An account of the Gilbert

Islands. (U. Nixon, Trans.) Melbourne: Oxford University
Press.

Sabatier, E., & Olivia, M. (1971). Gilbertese - English dictionary.

Sydney: South Pacific Commission Publications Bureau.

Talu, A., Baraniko, M., Tito, K., Beiabure, M., Etekiera, K.,
Fakaofo, U., . . . Uriam, K. (1979). Kiribati: Aspects of
history. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies and Extension
Services, University of the South Pacific & Ministry of
Education, Training and Culture, Kiribati Government.

Treaty between Great Britain and Germany relating to the

Demarcation of the Spheres of Influence 1886. Retrieved
from
http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/history/UKTreaty
1.html

Trussel, S. (1979). Kiribati (Gilbertese): Communication and

culture handbook. Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press.

Western Pacific Order 1877. Retrieved from

https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=14026 (pp. 871-911)

Wright, M. (2015). I-Kiribati to English Dictionary. Lexington, KY:

(no indication).

Page 12

View publication stats