Discourses of authority and stakeholder perspective: Processes of language development in

Barbara Trudell, SIL International, Africa Area ([email protected]) JeDene Reeder, SIL Togo/Benin ([email protected]) Conference on Languages and Education in Africa University of Oslo, 19-22 June 2006

The development of unwritten languages is a complex activity, with a wide range of linguistic and sociocultural aspects influencing the choice and acceptance of writing conventions. The processes of language development have long been considered as primarily linguistic in character; and indeed, without a clear understanding of the linguistic characteristics of a language, effective language development decisions are less likely. The approach by linguists and language planners (who are usually not active members of the language community) has historically concentrated on designing a linguistically optimal orthography; early production of literature in or about the newly written language has been largely descriptive of the language or its associated culture (Makoni and Trudell, forthcoming).

However strictly linguistic approaches to language development have been found to be both inadequate and shortsighted. Historical, sociopolitical and ideological factors are deeply influential on local stakeholders' attitudes towards their language. Given the crucial role these stakeholders play in the development and use of a written language, an understanding of these extra-linguistic factors becomes highly relevant to successful language development.

This paper builds on Eira's proposed framework of Discourses of authority in orthography selection (Eira 1998) as a tool for examining the processes of orthography development in a number of language communities of the West African country of Benin. The data on which the paper is based derives from interaction with Beninese and non-Beninese personnel who are or have been engaged in orthography development in Benin over the last two decades, as well as literature review and the personal experience of one author (Reeder) in language development programs in Benin and Togo.

Implications of orthography development for minority language communities

The linguistic and political status of most African languages is well described by Batibo (2005) in his study of language decline and death in Africa. He observes: Most of the African languages are minority languages. These languages are often characterized by insufficient codification, limited domains of use, legacies of domination by other languages, and negative attitudes towards them. (p. 60) With particular reference to the linguistic condition of such languages, Batibo argues that Minority languages are usually not sufficiently described. As a result most do not have standardized orthographies or appropriate grammars and dictionaries. The absence of documentation is often one of the excuses advanced by decision-makers against their use in education or other public functions (p.54).

1 In this way the linguistic underdevelopment of minority languages in Africa contributes to their limited use in society, which in turn reinforces their underdevelopment - a vicious cycle from which many languages find it impossible to escape. The ultimate outcome of such a cycle is language loss, described by Wurm (1996) in terms of the inadequacy of the minority language in the face of other, more powerful languages.

However researchers have found that where language development does occur, its impact is profound. With reference to orthography development in particular, Bamgbose (1991) describes extensive links between language development and the use of African languages in education contexts. The crucial role of a standardized orthography in fostering a vibrant written tradition is described by Adejunmobi (2004). Mazrui and Mazrui (1998:71-2) argue that the capacity of a language for being written increases its capacity for self-preservation; Crystal (2000:138) agrees, noting that an endangered language's chances for survival are significantly increased if it is written. Batibo (2005:119) describes the role of orthography development in empowerment of the language and its speakers. Thus from the practical aspects of language use to the more ideological aspects of empowerment and identity, orthography development is clearly implicated in the larger aims of language development and cultural vitality.

These various facets of orthography development - from the practical to the ideological - shape orthography decisions and form the basis upon which particular orthography choices are made and justified. In some cases the prevailing argument is for a practical, functionally oriented orthography that is phonemically complete and simple to learn to use (Francis and Reyhner 2002:218; Bamgbose 1991:135). Linguistic and pedagogical rationales buttress this view. In other perspectives, the ideal writing system should reflect the political, ethnic or religious distinctives of the speakers. Spolsky (2003: 29) uses the categories of psycholinguistic/technical and sociolinguistic/attitudinal to describe these two different kinds of criteria for judging the desirability of a writing system. The two rely on very different values and sources of authority for their justification.

The nature of orthography decisions, then, depends on the authority, values and agenda of those making the decisions. This in turn depends on who is at the table when orthography decisions are made - and what authority is recognized as legitimate by the decision makers. Stakeholders in orthography development include groups such as linguists and language development specialists, the institutional guardians of national language policy, local institutions which use (or desire to use) the written language, and the language community itself. Given the impact that language development can have on a minority culture, it stands to reason that members of that culture should be among those with the greatest interest in the specific directions of orthography development in their language. However, embedded as the entire process is in linguistic terminology and the language policy agenda of national leadership, local stakeholders are not readily included in orthography development (Bird 2001).

Counter examples do exist, such as Fishman (2001:298) describes, where an orthography development process among the Oko of Nigeria is taking place in cooperation between local citizens and scholars. The data discussed in this paper describe more examples of this unusual situation, in which local language community members are controlling to a large extent the orthography development process.

2 Discourses of authority in orthography development

As the number of recognized stakeholders in the orthography development process increases, the nature of the authority which they recognize becomes a highly relevant issue. Addressing this issue in the context of minority language development in Asia, Eira (1998) proposes a model of cultural discourses that influence orthography decisions. Building on Gee's concept of Discourse as "a way of being in the world"1 (Gee 1996:127), Eira argues that the negotiation of orthography choices is based on the underlying Discourses of the participants in that negotiation. Each Discourse legitimizes a particular kind of authority on which to base decisions. Eira identifies several major Discourses involved in orthography formation: the scientific, the political, the religious, the historical, the technological and the pedagogical. Each Discourse is seen by those who hold it as an underlying source of authority, and differences of opinion often reflect the Discourse in which they are framed (1998:174).

This typology of Discourses of authority offers an insightful means for understanding stakeholder choices in orthography development. Its application to several African orthography development situations, however, suggests a slightly different typology. What is proposed in this paper is reframing the typology into four categories: academic discourses, institutional discourses, ideological/historical discourses and sociopolitical/sociolinguistic discourses.2 The remainder of this paper expands on this proposed typology, based on current orthography development processes taking place in the West African country of Benin.

Academic discourses hold the authority of the linguistic ideal, theories of learning and technical arguments. The authority of the Western scientific research paradigm is based in these discourses as well. This authority has its source in Western academia and in particular conceptualizations of what is legitimate knowledge. When applied in African community contexts, it carries the force of the "higher authority of experts". The authority of academic discourses is often external to the community, and it may or may not be recognized as legitimate by local stakeholders.

Institutional discourses underpin the authority of sponsoring (and usually powerful) institutions; institutional sponsorship is critical to an orthography's sustainability, and so these discourses of authority can be very influential. These institutions are generally represented locally: local schools, local legal systems, local businesses, local pastors. However the institution often has wider representation as well; examples are national universities and national education policy; wider legal institutions; regional commercial suppliers; national denominational publishing houses; and international bodies like UNESCO. The breadth of external representation of an institution lends additional weight to the authority of its particular discourse, even as the weight of local institutional decisions regarding orthography is felt locally.

Ideological and historical discourses are those of influential religions, political movements, or historical traditions. The individuals or institutions which embody this type of authority are likely to be locally sited, although they are seen to represent larger belief systems. They appeal to values and beliefs which underpin local society, or at least certain segments of local

1 For Gee, the capitalized letter "D" distinguishes his definition of Discourse (above) from the strictly linguistic definition of discourse. 2 We also propose using the term "discourse of authority" with a lower case "d", and defining it as "a particular way of seeing the world which is held by a particular source of authority, whether that authority is institutional or conceptual."

3 society. For that reason the legitimacy of this authority may be contested locally, with both adherents and opponents.

Sociopolitical and sociolinguistic discourses are based in people's social and cultural identity, the degree to which they identify with local languages or cultures, and the extent of influence of other cultures and languages on them. The perceived prestige of particular dialects is one of these discourses as well. Although the authority of these discourses is highly local, it is difficult to find particular individuals or institutions who represent them; they are more diffuse, as part of a people's self-understanding.

These discourses are present to varying extents, exerting more or less influence on local decisions regarding orthography. Discourses may converge, resulting in strengthened authority in promoting a particular perspective. They may also conflict, generating a complex decision-making situation which eventually reveals the stronger discourse(s). Both of these scenarios - convergence and conflict of discourses of authority - may be seen in the data discussed in this paper.

Background: Beninese national context

As is the case in most former French colonies, in Benin the is the official language of government and education. However Benin's recent history of encouraging local language development has been significant. In 1972 a language policy favorable to the development of Beninese languages was formulated under the new Marxist-leaning government, and was at least partially implemented. In November 1972 a government document, Le Discours programme, was released, that explicitly favored literacy in all Beninese languages and called for the creation of a national linguistics institute in order to promote development of those languages (Halaoui 2001).

This policy led in 1974 to the creation of the National Linguistic Commission. Beginning in 1979 and continuing into the 1980s, this commission called a series of "National Linguistic Training Seminars" organized by region (Tompkins and Kluge 1997). At these seminars, alphabets were established for each recognized Beninese language; in addition, local sub- commissions were set up and members elected to serve on them (Awolou 20063). At this point, 19 Beninese languages had been officially recognized (Marmor 1993). Each linguistic sub-commission was also charged with the continued development of the orthography of its language. By the late 1990’s, some linguistic sub-commissions were still functioning while others were not.

In 1984 the National Linguistic Commission became CENALA, the National Center for Applied Linguistics.4 It is through CENALA that Beninese languages obtain official recognition. This organ has the responsibility for developing Benin’s languages for modern usage, working in partnership with the Université National du Bénin (Halaoui 2001; Pomeyon n.d.). CENALA entrusts much of this work to the linguistic commissions of each officially recognized Beninese language, providing official validation for the orthography recommendations of the local linguistic commission. CENALA also works with various non- governmental organizations that are involved in language research and development.

3 AWOLOU Daniel, e-mail communication, 10 April 2006 4 Arrêté de 1984 no 467-C/MESRS/DGM/SP (Pomeyon n.d. and le Bénin 2005)

4 The Discours programme of 1972 also led to the creation of la Division d’Alphabétisation et la Presse Rurale (the Division of Literacy and Rural Newspapers, DAPR5), charged with developing literacy in the national languages. They began fulfilling their mandate in 1975-76, holding workshops in which a three-volume set of books for basic literacy (pre-primer, primer and post-primer), based on the method of Paulo Freire, were constructed for each of the officially recognized languages (Gomon 20026). An infrastructure for adult literacy delivery was set up, with departmental and sub-prefectural literacy coordinators and a system of literacy supervisors and literacy teachers. By the late 1990’s, although the literacy infrastructure was still in place and adult mother tongue literacy classes were being held regularly in many groups, the primers were out of print. In some languages, new primers had been developed by NGO partners in literacy and development projects.

In 1990 another major regime change led to another change in language policy. A national conference was held in February of that year which was composed of virtually every social and political group in Beninese society: elders, politicians, army officials, peasants and the educated elites, as well as religious groups, women’s groups, and non-governmental organizations. This national conference adopted legislation regarding both French and Beninese languages that reflected the broad range of stakeholders in language policy. The place of Beninese languages as a means of expression and use, particularly in human rights education and for economic development, was maintained (Halaoui 2001; le Bénin 2005). However the official re-assertion of the official role of French at this point resulted in little significant reinforcement of the place of Beninese languages (Pomeyon n.d.).

Nevertheless the realities of the economic and linguistic situation were also recognized in this conference, and six languages were officially chosen for post-literacy and adult education. These languages were chosen according to the six then-existing political departments. Four of the six are languages of wider communication as well as mother tongues of many people in those departments: Fon, Yoruba, Baatonum, and Dendi. The other two, Aja and Ditammari, are not used as languages of wider communication but they are the language of the largest language group in their respective departments (le Bénin 2005). The introduction of these languages into formal education was also mandated by state policy; however the development of modern terminology and curricula in each language is proceeding slowly, and there are currently no mother tongue education programs operating in primary schools.

This evolution of policy regarding Beninese languages for the past 35 years or so is evidence of several points:  That changing language policy has reflected wider national policy decisions regarding political and cultural identity.  That there has been ongoing recognition on the part of the national government of the need to deal explicitly and proactively with local language issues. This position is not universal among African governments.  That national government strategy in orthography development has tended to emphasize encouragement and validation of locally made orthography decisions, rather than attempting to impose such decisions based on its central authority.  That institutional support for development of Beninese languages has been sustained, at least at a nominal level, throughout this period of time.

5 DAPR later became DNA (la Direction National d’Alphabétisation, the National Office for Literacy), then the DNAEA (la Direction Nationale d’Alphabétisation et de l’Education des Adultes, the National Office for Literacy and Adult Education) (Pomeyon, n.d.; Marmor 1993). 6 GOMON I. Abdoulaye Yacoubo, personal communication, September 2002.

5 Discourses of authority and Beninese language development

Academic discourses of authority

Although academic discourses of authority have Western academia as their source, African academic realities also strongly influence the shape of these discourses in Benin. The Beninese examples examined below show how this discourse interacts with other discourses when employed by linguists and local language development personnel.

The authority of linguistic research has played a significant role in the development of Beninese orthographies. In some cases, the research has been carried out by Beninese or other African linguists; in others, by non-African researchers; and in yet other cases, by both. These academics carry significant authority, albeit of different kinds. Academic elites who originate from the Beninese language communities tend to combine local perspective on language and orthography (and locally-sited discourses of authority) with a more strictly academic discourse, whereas non-Beninese linguists more often tend to promote a pragmatic, pedagogically influenced approach to orthography decisions. A more profound difference among these academics lies in the varying theoretical constructs and linguistic models to which they appeal in their proposals. Such models tend to be strongly influenced by the source of the academic training received, whether Europe, America or Africa. These differences between linguistic models have on occasion hindered convergence of academic discourses on the same orthographic choices.

The orthography development process in the Aja language is one in which academic discourses of authority exert significant influence. The Aja orthography committee, CISOLA (Comité internationale sur l’orthographe de la langue aja, International Committee for the Orthography of the Aja Language), was formed as an outcome of the 2003 Aja Orthography Forum which included the participation of both Beninese and non-African linguists. CISOLA, composed of the various stakeholders represented at the forum, often applies linguistic arguments to its decision-making process even though most members are not linguists; this tendency towards uncritical acceptance of academic sources of authority clearly shows the influence of academic discourses of authority in these cases.

Appeals to academic authority range from application of general linguistic principles to references to the authority of specific Beninese linguists (Ham 2005). CISOLA decided early in the orthography formation process to use the principles of orthography design elaborated by Western linguists Van Dyken and Kutsch Lojenga (1993) as their main frame of reference. These principles were followed fairly closely, particularly for word break decisions (Ham 2005; Kogon 2006). CISOLA also frequently refers to “resource people”, by which is meant Beninese and Togolese linguists, especially those whose mother tongue is Aja. Linguistic commission members of CISOLA tend to cite the writings of such linguists in support of their arguments. For these members of CISOLA, the source of the authority of these writings focuses more on the local credibility of their authors than on the specific nature of their linguistic perspectives.

In the Nateni language community academic authority has also played a significant role, particularly in recent orthography revision decisions. In 1991, after extensive linguistic analysis of the Nateni language by Nateni language workers and non-African linguists, a

6 conference was held to gain agreement on particular orthography issues. Issues such as the final form of the alphabet, the writing of nasalization, and the writing of compound words were addressed in this conference. The alphabet was considerably modified at this point by the removal of many allophones that had been originally represented because the sounds were distinctive in French (Bukies and Winrikou 1991). This action demonstrated the influence of the reigning academic discourse over the influence of French orthography, which had given rise to earlier iterations of the Nateni orthography.

A report on this series of orthography decisions was written and filed with CENALA, and in 1994 a Nateni-French lexicon was published by CENALA, the Nateni Language Commission (CNL-Nateni) and SIL7. Ten of the twelve arguments given in the report (Bukies and Winrikou 1991) for the suggested alphabet decisions use linguistic analysis as the primary (and often the sole) reason for the decision. The other two points appeal to the desirability of dialect unification, an argument which is described in the discussion of sociolinguistic discourses of authority, below.

Academic discourses have also heavily influenced the shape of the Mbelime language orthography. However in this case two linguistic arguments conflict in the consideration of tone marking and word breaks. In the case of tone, the functional load of tone in this language (which has three level tones) was originally determined to be high enough to require the writing of phonemic tone on all words (Rietkerk 1997b,1999). For reasons of visual discrimination, the mid and high tones were chosen to receive explicit marking while the low tone was unmarked (Marmor 19998). However, this system has proven unsatisfactory from a psycholinguistic perspective. Even those who work the most with the written language have difficulty writing tone accurately and teaching it correctly in literacy classes. As a result, discussions have begun to determine if there is a better way to mark the tone system in the Mbelime orthography (Sambieni 2002-20039; Merz and Merz 200410).

In the case of word breaks as well, decisions that seemed linguistically adequate have run up against psycholinguistic/pedagogical considerations. Linguistic data described by Rietkerk (1998) was presented to the Mbelime Linguistic Commission (CNL-Mbelime) in 1999. Based on this data, the CNL-Mbelime authorized the writing of Mbelime nouns with the noun class prefixes detached from the noun root, based on the criteria of separability (that adjectives can be placed between them) and substitutability (that noun class markers act as determiners that can be replaced by numbers). However, as this orthography has been used in literacy classes and materials, a consensus is emerging that the unity of the noun class marker with the root is psycholinguistically more real to Mbelime literates, and thus ought to be written as a single word (Sambieni 200411).

It can be seen from these Beninese examples that academic discourses of authority can exert a powerful influence on orthography development. Linguistic analysis is generally perceived as the primary base of each orthography. However, other concerns and interests are also playing a role in these orthography decisions.

7 SIL International is an international, faith-based NGO that studies, documents and assists in developing the world's lesser known languages. 8 Thomas W. Marmor, personal communication, February 1999. 9 SAMBIENI Richard, personal communication, 2002-2003. M. SAMBIENI is a supervisor in the Mbelime government literacy program. 10 Johannes and Sharon Merz, personal communication, Feb. 2004. 11 SAMBIENI Richard, example given in an orthography course, 3-7 May 2004.

7 Institutional discourses of authority

At least three distinct sources of institutional discourses of authority may be seen in orthography development processes in Benin: the government, various Christian denominations and non-governmental organizations.

Despite the fact that Beninese law has since 1992 favored the use of its national languages in education, schools are not an important factor in the acceptance and use of the orthographies in Benin. Although mother-tongue curriculum development efforts continue to be discussed, such curricula are not yet available. French dominates formal education; hence for no Beninese language is institutional support to be found in the formal educational system.

On the other hand, the government's non-formal education activities provide powerful support for orthography development and dissemination practices. With the infrastructure for adult literacy discussed above, all language groups that have a linguistic commission are eligible to have government-run literacy classes in their language. Most of these have used the primers developed by government in the late1970’s; but as these primers have become unavailable, new ones have been developed, usually by other organizations but keeping the desire of the government for functional literacy in mind.

The other governmental institution that plays an important role is CENALA. Locally, as described above, it is closely linked to the linguistic commissions for each language. The role of specific national linguistic commissions is discussed below.

Non-governmental organizations also are instrumental in orthography development through their literacy activities. C3A12, SIL, Jura-Afrique, GEFAD13, and others have all developed literacy and post-literacy materials, which have an important role in popularizing an orthography. These institutions have also been instrumental, through their literacy classes, in bringing problems with the respective orthographies to the notice of orthography developers. For example, SIL in Benin operates under an agreement signed with CENALA. Its institutional credibility comes from decades of research experience in the domain of language development. The research SIL has done has fed directly into orthography development discussions in at least six Beninese languages. In addition, SIL has worked with C3A to develop technical vocabulary in the post-literacy languages approved for use in adult education programs.

Another significant actor in the language development domain is the Christian Church, in the areas where it is present. The language policy of the Catholic Church since Vatican II has favored the use of mother tongue in worship; several Protestant denominations have the same policy. Both the Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations have engaged in activities that influence orthography development, in several Beninese languages. These include translation of liturgical materials and the Bible, and the sponsorship of literacy classes. Together these institutions have had substantial influence, either for or against change.

In the Aja area of Southern Benin and Togo, the Catholic Church was the first to publish materials in Aja in the 1960’s, including an 811-page Aja-French dictionary (now out of

12 Cellule d’Appui aux Activités d’Alphabétisation, a daughter NGO of Coopération Suisse 13 Groupement d’Etude et de Formation pour l’Auto-Développement, a Beninese NGO

8 print). The Church of Christ began publishing Scripture portions in the 1990’s and published a New Testament in 2004. The Baptist Convention (in Togo) has published a variety of materials including a primer series since the 1980’s. However each of these institutions has developed its own variation of the Aja orthography, with differences as significant as word break and symbolization choices (Ham 200514; Sullivan and Sullivan, personal communication15).

The impetus for the current attempt at standardization of written Aja is a joint Bible translation project of the Alliance Biblique du Bénin (Beninese Bible Society, ABB), the Comité de Traduction de la Bible en Ajagbe (Aja Bible Translation Committee, with representatives of the various denominations in Aja territory) and SIL. The new Bible will use whatever orthography is chosen by CISOLA, providing important standardization. However, among the 5 churches represented on CISOLA, language researchers have reported that recent publications fail to incorporate decisions made by the committee (Ham 2005; Sullivan and Sullivan, personal communication).

CISOLA also includes representatives of two government-related institutions, CNL-Aja and the DNAEA. The DNAEA representatives on CISOLA have indicated that they believe their voice should have a more influential role in decision-making, since DNAEA is legally responsible for literacy in Aja (Sullivan and Sullivan, personal communication). As Aja is one of the 6 officially designated languages for post-literacy development, the regional DNAEA’s influence will indeed be key to the acceptance and dissemination of the new orthography. They also publish in Aja, so their support of the new orthography is crucial for it to have the impact desired by CISOLA.

However as of this writing, although members of CISOLA are drawn from all stakeholder organizations including all the institutions previously named, the only two institutions that have committed themselves to publishing in the proposed orthography being developed by CISOLA are the ABB and the Baptist Convention (Sullivan and Sullivan, personal communication). So although these institutional discourses of authority have played such an important role in the development of the Aja orthography, competition between the institutions also serves to complicate further language development, since none of the institutions appears willing to forfeit its authority in favor of that of others.

In contrast, in the Nateni area in Northern Benin, a convergence of institutional discourses can be observed. Orthography decisions made by CNL-Nateni using SIL research were supported and implemented not only by the Catholic church, an important institution in the area, but also by SIL and Jura-Afrique. Jura-Afrique works primarily in the health domain, but also sponsored the creation of a local association, Ti Toua, to carry out adult literacy activities in Nateni. As a development organization rather than a linguistics organization, Jura-Afrique appears to have accepted the institutional authority of the CNL-Nateni and SIL. SIL's institutional credibility in language development was here the primary source of its institutional authority. The CNL-Nateni accepted SIL's institutional authority and based its revision of the initial orthography on SIL research. SIL also facilitated dissemination of this orthography by means of publication of a number of books in Nateni, including a primer and post-primer series.

14 Joshua Ham, e-mail communication, 27 Dec. 2005. 15 Terrence and Nancy Sullivan, e-mail communication, 27 Dec. 2005.

9 For the Mbelime language, institutional discourses are converging in the dissemination and acceptance of orthography decisions made by the CNL-Mbelime (itself an important source of institutional authority). The institutions currently participating in the spread of the orthography include the DNAEA, churches (Catholic, Assembly of God, and Ministry of Jesus), and SIL. These institutions support the dissemination of the orthography through literacy programs: the DNAEA and churches hold literacy classes, while SIL has facilitated the development of literacy materials, including post-literacy and transitional literacy (from French to Mbelime) materials.

Historical and ideological discourses of authority

Both historical and ideological discourses of authority have influenced orthography development in Benin to various extents.

The first language in the Aja region to be put in written form was Ewe, in the mid-1800’s. Its current form was set in 1930 at the 1st African Orthography Conference (Duthi 1994). Ewe is closely related to Aja, and has relatively high prestige as the main language of wider communication for the Aja speakers who live in Togo. This historical precedence of Ewe has meant that its orthographic conventions have influenced the writing of Aja, particularly in writing semi-vowels for vowel sequences and writing nasalization with a tilde rather than a vowel followed by a nasal consonant.

The history of French colonialism and ideology has also been important; in particular, early orthographies in the region were heavily influenced by French. However French orthographic conventions have much less impact on current orthography deliberations. This could be due to the limited influence that French language and culture have on local community identity in these areas of "francophone" Africa, as well as to increased awareness on the part of local decision makers regarding orthography alternatives that are linguistically and culturally more appropriate to Beninese languages than French is. In addition, the ideological de-emphasis of French by the Marxist government of the 1970’s and 1980’s may have also had an impact on language attitudes among the intelligentsia as well as the local populations.

A more diffuse historical influence on the Aja orthography is reflected in the tendency of CISOLA members to choose particular orthographic representations because of their "usage universel", that is, the argument that "everyone writes it this way already" (perceived or real). This argument of tradition appears to prevail over more sophisticated linguistic arguments for alternative representations (Ham 2005). This preference for common convention does not seem related to the particular origin of the writing convention.

Ideological discourses of authority are also evident in orthography choices. For example, allegiances to the competing orthographies which exist in Aja, described above, are linked to the origins of these orthographies in the different Christian denominations. Interestingly, however, the greatest potential influence of religious ideology on the writing system - that of Islam - does not appear to have any impact at all on orthography choices. Even those groups known for their firm adherence to Islam, such as the Anii, have not moved toward an script in their orthographies. Evidently the early establishment of Roman script alphabets in the regional linguistics seminars has not been seriously challenged. This is understandable, given the dynamics of Arabic text comprehension among adherents to Islam in these areas of sub-Saharan Africa (Tompkins and Kluge1997).

10 Sociopolitical/sociolinguistic discourses of authority

Sociopolitical and sociolinguistic discourses involve the interaction with and influence of neighboring languages, whether related linguistically or not, as well as the interaction of dialects within a language. They also include the dimension of cross-border issues. The complexity of these issues and their interaction with other discourses is well demonstrated in Beninese orthography design, as the following examples show.

The language of European colonizers has tended to influence the design of orthographies within their former colonies. As noted above, however, the influence of French orthography is weaker than might be expected. This may be because French is spread through schooling; and education rates in Benin are low despite significant improvement over the past 15 years (UNESCO 2005). In addition, Benin’s close economic and cultural ties with Nigeria mean that among Beninese intellectuals, English is coming to be preferred as an international language. These factors have reduced the impact of French upon Beninese orthographies.

Nevertheless, because most local orthography developers have been influenced by the French-language school system, some impact is evident. The two areas in which this has most often been seen are phoneme perception and accompanying letter choice, and the choice of symbols for indicating nasalized vowels. Specific instances are discussed below.

Mbelime and Nateni are neighboring and related languages in Northwestern Benin. The CNL-Mbelime opted to borrow its neighbor’s method of symbolizing nasalized vowels, despite the recommendation of CENALA for languages in that linguistic family to write a tilde over the vowel. This decision helps bilinguals who read one of the two languages to read the other more easily.

French had an influence on earlier written versions of both Mbelime and Nateni. Their alphabets initially included separate symbols for [d], [l], and [r], although a monolingual Mbelime or Nateni speaker would distinguish only one consonant. The ‘extra’ letters were included because French-schooled people had learned to perceive the differences between these three sounds. Later linguistic research provided the basis for dropping the extra letters from the alphabets.

However in Nateni there existed an additional sociolinguistic reason for the dropping of those letters: the desire to have an orthography acceptable to and usable in all four major dialects16 of Nateni. Pronunciation of certain words and suffixes is a major manifestation of dialectal variation. When only one symbol for a set of predictable variations is used, as in the above example, an orthography can serve the entire language community without unduly favoring a single dialect. Thus while linguistic considerations outweighed the influence of French overall, the authority of sociolinguistic discourses for Nateni speakers provided important support for the final letter choice and spelling decisions.

Sociolinguistic discourses in Anii involve both cross-border and dialect issues. Not only are dialects fairly disparate from village to village, but there was no common name for the language prior to the first meeting of the linguistic sub-commission. The name ‘Anii’ was chosen by the sub-commission because it was the common element in the phrase for ‘I say’

16 The dialects are Nateni, Tayari, Kunteni, and Okoni. (Bukies and Winrikou 1991; Gordon 2005)

11 as spoken in three villages (Tompkins and Kluge 1997). However, for nearly two decades this term was used only by the Beninese speakers of this language, not the Togolese speakers. It was only after discussions with sociolinguistic researchers in 1996 that Togolese speakers of the language also decided to go by the name ‘Anii’ (ibid.)

Dialect intercomprehension has also been an issue of interest. The Bassila dialect of Anii is the dialect most widely understood. As a result, it has been chosen as the reference dialect for the written form of the language, both in 1978 and in current revision discussions. However divergence of vocabulary across the language area is quite widespread, with lexical differences ranging from 88 to 68 percent between four surveyed villages (Tompkins and Kluge 1997:18). This variance has since been confirmed by language development workers involved in developing the orthography and written materials (Zaske and Zaske, 2002- 200417).

An April 19, 2003 meeting of the Comité pour le Développement de la langue anii (Committee for the Development of the Anii Language) discussed possible revisions to the orthography based on linguistic research and testing. No decisions were reached at this meeting, although it appeared that recommendations regarding word breaks and nasalization might be adopted (Stringer 200318).

At a writers’ workshop held several months later, intolerance of one another's dialect was in evidence among the participants (Dozeman 200319). This attitude, along with the very real difficulties of comprehension between the most divergent dialects, would seem to argue against the development of a standard orthography which will serve all Anii. However, the sense of being a unified people is quite strong, and finds its source in Islam. A local marketplace proverb illustrates this: “To be Anii is to be Muslim”. The continuing efforts of the community for nearly 30 years to develop their language shows that the authority of sociolinguistic discourses predominates in this situation. On solely linguistic grounds, it would be easy to treat the Anii as speaking two or more different languages; but their desire for unity is too strong to be satisfied with that alternative. The authority of this sociolinguistic discourse means the debate continues on the best way to write Anii so that the written form will serve as a communication tool for all Anii.

The Aja also deal with cross-border and inter-dialect issues. Although academic discourses have exerted the strongest influence on orthography choices, the influence of other languages and dialects has allowed the authority of sociolinguistic discourses to be felt. Two major languages of wider communication are spoken in the Aja area, according to country. For ease of transfer to Ewe, the Togolese Aja speakers would prefer to write nasalized vowels as Ewe does. For the same reasons, and with the authority of CENALA’s decree for the language family (CENALA 2003), the Beninese Aja speakers prefer to indicate nasalized vowels as Fon does. CISOLA opted for the latter, basing their choice on the sociolinguistic discourses of ‘near-universal usage’ in published literature and the ease of transfer to French, as well as studies done by literacy workers (Ham 2005; Kogon 2006).

Developing an orthography that speakers of all dialects will agree to use is a major challenge for CISOLA. Although a 1996 sociolinguistic survey established that the main dialectal differences are in the area of the pronunciation (Tompkins and Kluge 2002), CISOLA has,

17 Martin and Stefanie Zaske, personal communication 2002-2004. 18 Stephen Stringer, e-mail communication, 28 April 2003. 19 Lois Dozeman, personal communication, November 2003.

12 after much debate, proposed that while the Hwe dialect will serve as the reference dialect for the Bible translation, authors may continue to write sounds according to the pronunciation of their own dialect (Ham 2003; Kogon 2006:16). The committee also is recommending that tone be written only in limited environments, to avoid accentuating tonal differences between dialects (Kogon 2006:17). Thus sociolinguistic discourses in this case act as a barrier to a single, standardized Aja orthography.

Conclusion

Study of the orthography development processes currently occurring in Beninese languages contributes significantly to an understanding of how orthography development takes place in minority language contexts of sub-Saharan Africa. Clearly linguistic analysis is not the only, or even necessarily the prevailing, reference point for the development of these orthographies. These processes are certainly influenced by outside forces; nevertheless they are clearly locally sited, and are strongly shaped by local perceptions of which discourses of authority are to be heeded.

The typology used in this paper provides an alternative model to that described by Eira, though based in the same theoretical construct of cultural discourses of authority. All four types of discourse - academic, institutional, ideological/historical and sociopolitical/ sociolinguistic - can be seen to have significant impact on local decision-making. Furthermore, the impact of converging and conflicting discourses on local orthography decisions is significant, and reveals much about local perceptions of the legitimacy of the authorities to which these discourses refer. Understanding this complexity of discourses allows a more comprehensive picture of orthography development in minority language communities such as these.

13 References

Adejunmobi, Moradewun. 2004. Vernacular Palaver. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Bamgbose, Ayo. 1991. Language and the Nation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. Batibo, Herman. 2005. Language Decline and Death in Africa. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 2005. Le Bénin. https://www.tflq.ulaval.ca/axl/afrique/benin.htm Bird, Stephen. 2001. Orthography and identity in Cameroon. Written Language and Literacy 4.2 (2001), 131-162. Bukies, Ulrich and Esaïe Winrikou. 1991. Rapport des travaux de révision de l’alphabet et de la standardisation de l’orthographe du naténi. Unpublished ms. CENALA. 2003. Alphabet des langues nationales, 4ème ed. Ottawa, Canada: Centre de Recherches pour le Développement International Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duthie, A. S. 1994. Ewe. in R.E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Eira, Christine. 1998. Authority and Discourse: Towards a model for orthography selection. Written Language and Literacy 1.2 (1998), 171-224. Fishman, Joshua (ed.). 2001. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Francis, Norbert and Jon Reyhner. 2002. Language and Literacy Teaching for Indigenous Education: A Bilingual Approach. Multilingual Matters Ltd. Gee, James. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies. 2nd ed. Routledge. Gordon, Raymond (ed). 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World.15th ed. Dallas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Halaoui, Nazam. 2001. Amenagement et politique linguistique: La politique des language au Benin. Language Problems and Language Planning 25.2 (2001), 145-166. Ham, Joshua. 2005. Notes on the meetings of CISOLA, 2003-2005. Unpublished ms. Kogon, Emmanuel (ed.). 2006. Orthographe pratique standard de l’ajagbe. Draft version. Makoni, Sinfree and Barbara Trudell. Forthcoming. English and education in anglophone Africa: Historical and current realities. In Wong, Christianity and Teaching: Cultural, Political, Pedagogical and Professional Tensions. Marmor, Thomas W. 1993. Benin National Background Study. Unpublished ms. Mazrui, Ali and Alamin Mazrui. 1998. The Power of Babel. Oxford and Nairobi: James Currey and East African Educational Publishers. POMEYON Gabriel Yandjou. Statut de la langue française au Bénin : La « Revanche » des langues nationales. Travaux du GEREC l’Ewop. http://www.palli.ch/~kapeskreyol/ewop/revanche.html Rietkerk, Dieke. 1997a. Phonologie et orthographe de la langue mbélimé. Unpublished manuscript.

14 ---1997b. Tonal analysis of Mbélimé. Unpublished manuscript. ---1998. Coupures des mots en mbélimé. Unpublished manuscript. ---1999. Tone on Mbélimé verbs. Unpublished manuscript. Spolsky, Bernard. 2003. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tompkins, Barbara and Angela Kluge. 1997. Sociolinguistic survey of the Anii - Akpe language area. Unpublished ms. --- 2002. Sociolinguistic survey of the Aja language area. SIL Electronic Survey Reports. http://www.sil.org/silesr/2002/020. UNESCO. 2005. EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.uis.unesco.org. Van Dyken, Julia R. and Constance Kutsch Logjenga. 1993. Les frontières du mot : facteurs clés dans le développement d'une orthographe. in Rhonda L. Hartell, ed. Alphabets de langues africaines. Dakar: UNESCO – Bureau Régional de Dakar et la SIL. Wurm, Stephen. A. 1996. Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Paris: UNESCO.

15