The Context of Language Planning in Africa: an Illustration with Nigeria

Efurosibina Adegbija

The Context of Language Planning in Africa: An Illustration with Nigeria

Series B: Applied & Interdisciplinary Papers ISSN 1435-6481 Essen: LAUD 1991 (2nd ed. with divergent page numbering 2007) Paper No. 228

Universität Duisburg-Essen

Efurosibina Adegbija

University of Ilorin (Nigeria)

The Context of Language Planning in Africa: An Illustration with Nigeria

Copyright by the author Reproduced by LAUD 1991 (2nd ed. with divergent page numbering 2007) Linguistic Agency Series B University of Duisburg-Essen Applied and Interdisciplinary FB Geisteswissenschaften Paper No. 228 Universitätsstr. 12 D- 45117 Essen

Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/laud/index.html Or contact: [email protected] Efurosibina Adegbija

The Context of Language Planning in Africa: An Illustration with Nigeria

Introduction Eva Engholm (1965; p. 15) observes: "Language is the key to the heart of a people. If we lose the key, we lose the people. If we treasure the key and keep it safe, it will unlock the door to untold riches, riches which cannot be guessed at from the other side of the door." The above observation is very pertinent for the purpose of this paper, which is, to examine the context of language planning in Africa. In many parts of Africa, language planning policies have often been ignorantly formulated, haphazardly and hastily implemented, when implemented at all, incoherently co-ordinated, and carelessly and carefreely evaluated. Many people involved in taking crucial language planning decisions are often unaware of the full implications and import of the general properties of the context for which language is being planned. Naturally, therefore, issues relating to language planning and policies have frequently metamorphosed into political time bombs that threaten the unity and well being of many nations. This paper investigates the global contextual background of language planning in Africa; Nigeria, in particular, is used for illustration. The proposition is made that a greater and keener sensitivity to the plethora of sociolinguistically related factors at work in the complex scenario and arena of language planning in African multilingual countries is a desideratum for diffusing language-related tensions. As Inglehart and Woodward (1972; p.376) note: "An intelligent awareness of the tensions which could result if one language were given preference may prevent language from becoming a serious basis of cleavage."

Language Planning Decisions Appel and Muyskeen (1987; p.46) highlight some of the language planning processes which governments in multilingual countries, especially in the third world or recently independent countries, must attend to. Such countries, according to them, "have to choose a national language, they have to further develop or cultivate it to make it more useful for various communicative needs, they have to foster its spread, they have to make decisions with regard to the position of the minority languages, etc." For most African countries, an additional decision, closely related to the last decision identified, also has to be taken, namely, what the roles, levels of functions and domains of usage of the indigenous languages, especially the minority languages, should be.

1 Types of Context Germane to Language Planning Decisions in Africa I would like to propose that the following types of contexts, which, hitherto, have not received the attention they deserve, are very pertinent for effective language planning decisions and implementation in multilingual Africa and, therefore, demand the intense individual and corporate attention of contact linguists, policy planners, politicians, and whoever has a say in language planning: a) The language context b) The socio-political context c) The psychological context d) The administrative/governmental context e) The educational context. Undoubtedly, each of the above types of context is multifaceted in nature and we cannot exhaustively address them as they relate to language planning. Our purpose will therefore be to selectively highlight aspects that we consider most worthy of the attention of the language planner in Africa. a) The Language Context That multilingualism is the rule rather than the exception in most African countries is now an open secret. For example, South Africa has, among its numerous languages, the following: Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Afrikaans, English, Swati, Ndebele, Tswana, Venda, Tsonga, and Shangan. As Dirven (1989) indicates, many of these languages have their own varieties and there is therefore a need for standardization. Zulu and Xhosa, for instance, belong to the same language family, Nguni (just as do Swati, North and South Ndebele), and proposals have been made to standardize them into one "consolidated Nguni" (cf. Dirven, 1989; p.23). Dirven further notes that a similar proposal has been made for the Sotho varieties/languages: Sotho, South Sotho, and Tswana. Whereas the fact that many African countries are multilingual is fairly obvious to most scholars, the nature, character and garb worn by multilingualism in each country are not that obvious and have not received the attention they deserve in view of their import for effective language planning. For instance, there are some countries such as Nigeria, which we may refer to as so complexly and maximally multilingual and multicultural that, as far as language planning is concerned, the situation almost borders on chaos. Very unfortunately, the matter is not at all helped by dismal ignorance about the actual number and character of the languages spoken. Accurate inventories on the languages are lacking and threaten to remain so for a long time unless there is a change of heart and attitude among government agencies and scholars. In fact, ignorance of the actual number of languages in Nigeria has been, and still is an embarassing enigma to all linguists, to the government, to policy makers in general, and to anyone that has to do with language planning. Hitherto, it has been a

2 guessing game: some have said there are 200, others 300, others still 394, and some others as many as 400 (cf. Bamgbose 1971; Osaji 1979; Adegbija 1989). Obviously, this kind of guessing game cannot be a solid foundation for effective language planning. Factors militating against successful language surveys include poor communication systems, insufficient funds for individuals or bodies interested in such surveys, lack of governmental impetus, and large expanses of people groups needing to be surveyed. An on-going survey of languages in Nigeria in which I am currently engaged serves to demonstrate the intriguing and complex nature of the language situation; it also indicates that there is still a long way to go. Let me illustrate the point being made with two practical examples: Plateau and Cross River States.

3 Tentatively, we have discovered that Plateau State, with a land area of 58,030 square kilometres and a population of roughly 3 million1 has the following 62 languages represented in it: BEROM, HAUSA, Charawa, Pyen, Gashit, Atem, Geomai, Kwala, Youn, Shendam, Amper, Piapuna, Koi, Ankwai, Gade, Fulani, Gbagyi, Yeskwa, Mada, Goro, Afo, Gwandara, Tarok, Langtang, Alago, Ake, TIV, Kanuri, Mighili, Angas, Tal, Fier, Kantana, Miango, Rundre, Rom, Irrigwe, Rukuba, Gwari, Buji, Mangu, MgaMwaghavul, Romkulere, Aguta, Eloyi, Gade, Ebira, Bassa, Bogghom, Bashawara, Dengi, Mada, Jukun, Eggon, Rindiri, Arum, Moma, Montol, Doma, Ba'ap, Pidgin. An even more complex and intriguing situation is that of Cross River State, with a land area of about 30,000 square kilometres and a population of roughly 3 million (Essien, 1982; p. 117). It has tentatively, the following 67 indigenous languages: ANNANG, EFFIK, IBIBIO, EJA GHAM, BOKYI, BEKWARA, Biase, Quasi, Ugep, Bembe, Yakkur, Eket, Sankula, Obudu, Oron, Ochukwayan, Yala, Ishibori, Ekajuk, Etung, Ukele (with the northern dialect being unintelligible to the southern dialect), Yahe, Wori, Ibeno, Nkari, Qua, Ofutop, Nkim, Nde, Nselle, Nta (Atam), Mbube, Bette, lyala (Yala), Utukwana, Tiv, Yache, Agoi, Mbembe, Loka, Abini, Ehom, Doko, Lokobi, Agwagwune (with the Abini and Idim dialects), Ikom-Olulumi, Akama, Iyoniyong (threatened with extinction since the young people speak Effik as their L1 -Essien, 1982; p. 120), Kohumono, Korop, Kukule (Ukele), Legbo (Agbo), Leyigha, Lenyima, Luko, Lokoli, Lubila, Mbembe, Ubaghara, Ukpet-Ehom, Umon, Yala, Yache, Nnam, Abanyom, Igede. Since we are not even sure of the number of languages available, i.e. many African languages have not yet been identified by linguists, it is somewhat premature to talk about devising orthographies for them or carrying out other language development tasks on them. Moreover, many of the languages that have been identified have not yet been studied and do not have orthographies owing to, as noted earlier, poor coordination, non-availability of funds for linguists interested in working on them, and an insufficient number of interested experts. Without any fear of contradiction, we can declare that over 90% of the languages identified for Plateau and Cross River States have not been reduced to writing or have no orthographies as yet. The abundance of dialects complicates and compounds the picture painted above even further, so much so that in some village clusters, several varieties of a language, at times mutually unintelligible, exist. For instance, in Akoko North in Ondo State in Nigeria, a town, referred to as Ajowa, comprises several villages that have now merged. These are: Akunnu, Ora, Efifa, Ojo, and Uro. Among the residents of Ajowa, the following

1 Please note that population figures are rough estimates based on the 1963 census figures. As yet, there is no accurate census statistics in Nigeria. One hopes that the census being planned for 1991 will provide a more reliable population statistics. Also, there could be debates about the status of some of the languages identified here. Some scholars might, for instance, argue that some of the languages identified are dialects. As noted earlier, however, the survey is an on-going one and the list is therefore tentative.

4 languages/dialects? are shared: Daja, Efifa, Ojo, Uro, Ora. Consequently, it is not uncommon for community members to move from one part of the town to another and to discover that the language variety being used by the neighbours cannot be understood. Fortunately, though, many of the people understand mainstream Yoruba which functions somewhat like a lingua franca in the midst of the babel of dialects. Similarly, Essien (1982) notes that Bokyi, one of the languages of Cross River State, has the following as dialects: Oku, Oyokom, Erwan, Eastern Bokyi, Boje, Abu, Boorim, Kakwagom. To still cite further examples of the dialect abundance, we are aware that Igbo, one of the major languages in Nigeria, as classified by the government, has, in Imo State (cf. map of Nigeria), the following dialects: Ngwa, Mbaise, Afikpo, Abriba, Ohafia, Etiti, Ideato, Umuahia, Okigwe, Mbano, Orlu, Ogota, Uburu, Oru, Owerri, Egbema, Ikeduru: almost every town has its own dialect. Yoruba, another major Nigerian language, has, at least, the following distinct dialects in Oyo State, one of the six states in Nigeria where the Yoruba language is predominant: Oyo, Onko, Ife, Igbomina, Ijesa, Igbonla, Erima. Different other dialects of Yoruba are found in other states. A language does not need to be a major language to have its own dialects. For instance, Oko (known to non-natives as Ogori), is spoken, to my knowledge, in only two small villages in the whole world: Ogori and Magongo; each village claims that its variety is the standard. Ignorance of this complex stature, and decor of multilingualism jeopardizes effective planning, for while plans may be made concerning functions for particular languages, planners may be unaware of another language to which a particular community owes its language loyalty or allegiance. The picture painted above is by no means peculiar to Nigeria. In a study of Nairobi, Kenya, an urban area, Stanley Liebersen and Edward J. McCabe (1978; pp.69-81) report the presence of different languages used in different domains and which, unfortunately, are resulting in language shift. Among the languages mentioned are English, Kikuyu, Luo, Punjabi, Luyia, Gujarati, and Swahili. Also, a recent linguistic survey of Ethiopia, which was a 4 year project done by many scholars, showed that there were 70 languages from 4 different language families. The number of speakers ranged from 7,800,400 for Amhaic, an Ethipian Semitic language, to 250 for Kwega, a Nilo-Saharan language (cf. Bender et al., 1976). Similar and more detailed surveys need to be done in other parts of Africa in order to provide for language planners a comprehensive, more accurate, and more reliable picture of the language context. The point being made, therefore, is that we should strive at a more thorough knowledge of the language situation and seek to understand the different faces of multilingualism in the different African countries, for while most African countries are multilingual, some are more multilingual than others, and language planners who are unaware of, or refuse to take cognizance of this important contextual variable, do so to the peril of effective language planning. Yet another consequential dimension of the language context is the pride of place usually bequeathed to the language of colonial dominance, when compared to the lack of

5 prestige for the indigenous languages. In an attempt to address this problem, many countries have officially institutionalized or legitimized a few languages as "major or main languages," courtesy of their numerical strength, political vigour, economic prowess or influence of the speakers. As power brokers, members of such so-called major languages see themselves as the fortunate chosen few ordained from above to dictate the pace of national affairs and the destiny, linguistic or otherwise, of the nation. Consequently, the chosen ones tend to look down on other language groups by virtue of the prestigious official national status conferred on or awarded to their languages. Unfortunately, however, the official institutionalization of some languages as "major" (as is the case for Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo in Nigeria, and, I believe, Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, and Sotho in South Africa), has the inadvertent effect of pitching one major language group against another, creating opposition camps and breeding political animosity principally on the basis of language sentiments. The raw fact is that each major language group sees itself as primus inter pares; each is lord in its manor and often, none has taken root across the entire country. Consequently, any policy that assigns a specific function to one, or appears to be doing so, is instantly interpreted by members of other chosen language groups as an attempt to dominate the country through a type of indigenous linguistic neo-imperialism or colonialism. The inherent antipathy created between major language groups may partially account for the fact that in Nigeria, attempts to teach Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo, the majority languages, in areas where they are not the mother tongues, have not met so far with any appreciable success. The official explanation is lack of teachers. Other equally valid explanations may be proffered. These include: disinterest on the part of learners, lack of texts, poor implementation on the part of the government, lack of funds to back up the implementation of the policy, etc. Consequently, even though the School Certificate Examination is supposed to have been done in them compulsorily by all secondary school students next year (1992), the current Federal Minister of Education, Professor Babs Fafunwa, is reported to have announced the cancellation of plans to do exams in them as follows: "Professor Fafunwa revealed that the National Council on Education had directed that the compulsory offering of a language other than the student's mother tongue at their final examination scheduled for next year had been shelved owing to shortage of teachers to teach the three main languages in post-primary institutions nationwide. He said the Council also directed that training of teachers for Igbo, Yoruba, and Hausa languages be stepped up in all Colleges of Education and universities to ensure that the policy was adopted before the end of the tenure of the present administration." (New Nigerian Thursday, March 14, 1991; p.1) Since the "tenure of the present administration" officially ends in 1992, and another administration which may not see the stated policy as its priority could come to power (it would need time to settle down before addressing issues as politically explosive as language planning), we can only leave to chance the fate and destiny of the policy. As noted in Adegbija (1989a), many Nigerian governments, aware of the context of mutual political and

6 linguistic tension beclouding speakers of Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo, often adopt the apparently prudent policy of inertia or indifference whenever the issue of language planning is raised. In addition to the mutual rivalry between major language groups, speakers of minority languages, that is, of over 90% of languages represented in the country, are not taking things lying low, for they also subtly resent and are hostile to the official glorification of some languages as main or major languages. Such silent antipathy or hostility, often more dangerous for effective language planning than open hostility, manifests itself frequently in deliberate refusal to be subdued by speakers of the major languages, linguistically or otherwise. Chief Anthony Enahoro, a vociferous Edo-speaking minority echoed the feelings of most minority groups thus in one of the 1961-62 Parliamentary debates: "...as one who comes from a minority tribe, I deplore the continuing evidence in this country that people wish to impose their customs, their languages and even their way of life upon the smaller tribes. ... My people have a language, and that language was handed down through a thousand years of tradition and custom." (Quoted from Iwara, 1988; p.13) The very presence of colonial languages is another aspect of the language context which constitutes a ready excuse for planlessness and inertia and also gives a false sense of peace and security that destroys the need to plan. Consequently, serious and systematic language planning is not seen as a priority. After all, many usually argue, the different African countries have survived since independence; Nigeria, for example, for over 30 years, without any serious attention to language policy and planning - and yet she has weathered the storms, rigours, and vicissitudes of nationhood without a national language. So, why bother about it now that there are more pressing matters to attend to? This devil's advocate logic, unfortunately believed in by many serious-minded people, does not, in the least, augur well for effective language planning efforts in Africa. Overall, then, the point being made is this: as far as the language context of many African countries as it relates to language planning is concerned, there is still a serious battle to be fought, a race to be won, and serious dangers to meet on the way: only the concerted individual and corporate efforts of contact and conflict linguists and like-minded scholars can begin to provide the will-power and impetus for taking the bull by the horns. b) The Socio-Political Context Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, a former Prime Minister of Nigeria, was reported in Iwara (1988; p. 16) to have remarked: "If the British quitted Nigeria now at this stage the Northern people would continue their uninterrupted conquest to the sea." The above words typify the social situation between many ethnic and language groups in Nigeria up till today. It is an open secret that some people perceive members of a particular ethnic group, specifically the Hausas, as considering themselves as the only ones destined to

7 rule the nation. Coup plotters have even attempted to exploit knowledge of the idea of the existence of a group attempting to dominate other groups to whip up unnecessary ethnic sentiments. In the most recent of our coups and counter-coups, April 1990, David Orkar and his men carried their perception of the existence of such inter-ethnic negative feelings so far as to announce, rather naively, that five states were being excised from Nigeria! Reference has also been made to the speech of Anthony Enahoro, a member of a minority group, to the effect that he would resist every attempt to subdue his language, customs, and way of life. The situation of subtle, often hidden, but, at times, open mutual suspicion among different ethnic and language groups: major versus major; major versus minor; and, at times, minor versus minor, is a commonplace in many African countries, especially in the struggle to equittably share the "national cake" (cf. Adegbija, 1989b). Such a sociopolitical atmosphere is hardly conducive to language planning effectiveness and often, adversely affects implementation efforts since virtually every move tends to be interpreted as an attempt by one language group to take political and linguistic advantage of another. Another notable aspect of the socio-political aspect is that in many African countries the elites, who are the power mongers and power brokers, the national destiny shapers and economy movers or destroyers, usually a small minority, are often bilingual in their mother tongues and the language of the colonial masters. Consequently, this knowledgeable minority perpetuates a kind of apartheid in the socio-economic sphere which is admired and secretly envied by the "indigenous majority" but is also subtly hated. In effect, an ambivalent love-hate attitude (cf. Adegbija, 1989c) tends to develop towards the language of the colonial masters; you need it to flourish and prosper socio-politically and economically and rise on the national vertical ladder, at least in the present scheme of things; on the other hand, however, you recognize that it is a foreign language to your land and for this reason, you feel cheated and it demeans you that you are forced to speak the language of your former exploiters. By virtue of their functioning as vehicles of upward mobility socially, politically, and economically, therefore, many people still seem to have the hunch that it would be in their own interest to learn the language of the colonial masters. This prestige of the colonial languages in most African countries is further enhanced by the fact that indigenous languages have, in the main, been confined in their functions to informal settings (see Adegbija, 1989a, for arguments against this). In Nigeria, for instance, important national issues such as budget broadcasts, National Day celebrations and speeches, etc. are often conducted in the language of colonial dominance. More than 95% of the newspapers and magazines in the country are published in the language of the colonial masters; also, as much as 80% of radio and television broadcasts is done in English. Most states of the Federation have no newspaper in the indigenous languages. However, every state has at least one newspaper published in English, apart from magazines, bulletins, etc. which are also published in English. Kwara State, for instance (cf. Map of Nigeria), can boast of The Herald, a government newspaper and, in addition, Kwara Weekly, recently

8 renamed The Courier, and Ilorin Watch both privately-owned newspapers, also published in English. By converse, the State, to my knowledge, has no single newspaper published in any of the indigenous languages. This picture is very characteristic of many of the states, but we need not go into further details here. On the Kwara State National Television Authority, the speaking of the indigenous languages is largely limited to occasional special programmes and the readings of news for less than ten minutes each at a stretch for Ebira, Baruba, and Nupe, the chosen few of the over twenty languages represented in the state. In essence, we are saying that as far as social prestige is concerned, the languages of colonial dominance have everything they require to make it whereas the indigenous languages have everything that can make them go hang! In most important contexts where things count and where important issues are being handled, the language of colonial dominance has an upper hand both in principle and in practice. The subtle message being transmitted from generation to generation in most African countries, therefore, is that socio-politically, the colonial language is the one that matters. In case the message, intended or unintended is not got, the educational machinery, which is directly relevant, ultimately, to the acquisition of bread and butter, confirms the message loud and clear, since the language of colonial dominance is usually the medium of instruction. Effective social mobilization is the casualty of the socio-political context so far described. As Adegbija (1989; p.29) puts it: "Effective mobilization for the national good makes mandatory a swift and effective information dissemination machinery. The language used must be able to convey all the nuances, cultural loading, feelings, and emotions required by the particular message. In effect, a nationwide language of social interaction should be such that the citizenry can identify with, be proud of, and use effectively." Obviously, most of the languages of the colonial masters do not pass the above tests of language policy and planning in the African context principally because they are usually spoken by a small minority of the populace. Dirven (1989; p.6) notes, for instance, that the picture painted above rings true for the South African context as well: "... the indigenous languages are downgraded to the languages of the home, the street, and the occasional private encounter." He warns: "The harm that could be done to the folk wisdom in science and technology and the culture by not developing the indigenous languages into instruments of all the so-called higher domains of life, might turn out to be an irreparable blow to African culture. We would end up with a diglossic situation in which all higher cognitive and interactional functions are covered by English, and the lower domains (home, hearth, and heart) are covered by the traditional African languages." (Dirven, 1989; pp.6-7) Fortunately, we have one voice in the wilderness in Sekou Toure of Guinea who has attempted at least to promote the status and roles of the indigenous languages (cf. Dirven,

9 1989; p.21). An appropriate sociopolitical context provides the necessary emotional manure for language planning to be effective; its absence jeopardizes effectiveness. c) The Psychological Context Mutual suspicion existing between language groups results in prejudice, stereotypes, and subtle linguistic hostility, which could have adverse implications for language planning. The Ebira-speaking people, for example, are looked down upon by the Yoruba-speaking people. By historical expediency, we gathered, many of the Ebiras had settled in Yorubaland and worked for the Yorubas to earn money before returning to their homes. Several stereotypes, now virtually tantamount to mutual animosity, have developed among the Yorubas towards the Ebirras, and vice versa, in spite that many Yoruba women have been married to Ebirra men. Deeprooted, culturally sanctioned stereotypes and prejudices of this nature are a commonplace in multilingual and multicultural societies both among major language groups, thus aggravating already-existing mutual antipathy, and among the minority groups. They need to be fully understood before policies can be formulated and implemented, for they could militate against the most well-motivated and well-intentioned policy which, on the basis of ingrained societal, culturally transmitted prejudices, could be seen as ill- motivated and given a political colouring and interpretation. Since individuals, as well as agencies and communities have a lot to do with the success or failure of a language policy (cf. Appel and Muyskeen, 1987), a policy externally imposed without an understanding of the internal, hidden and open prejudices, attitudes and emotions in a particular community could turn out to be a case of succeeding in forcing a horse to the stream without being able to force it to drink water. Generally, the Hausa speaking people of Sokoto, Kano, and Kaduna states have a solid reputation of deep pride in their language. As Appel and Muyskeen (1987; p.57) rightly observe, "The national hegemony of one (ethnic) language seems to imply domination by the original speakers of that language i.e. by one specific ethnolinguistic group." Consequently, many indigenous Hausa people would often say "Ba turenchi" (no English) to anyone who does not speak their language, which they seem to feel should be understood by all those they come in contact with. It is even said that a Hausa-speaking trader would rather not sell his wares than attempt to even speak the market patios which is very common in many parts of Nigeria. This patent demonstration of pride or loyalty in the Hausa language, unfortunately, has a corollary in hatred for the English language. Consequently, in states like Kano, Katsina, and Sokoto, the attitudes of the majority of the population towards English is generally indifferent, negative, or downright hostile, especially when spoken by anyone in black skin; it is somewhat tolerated when the speaker has a white skin. Explanation for the negative attitude towards English lies in that it is seen by many of the indigenes as a tool or symbol of an alien culture and religion (i.e. Christianity). Thus, whereas most Hausa-speaking Muslims in Kano, Sokoto, and Katsina would encourage,

10 nurture, and promote the speaking of Arabic (the vehicle of Islam) and speak it along with Hausa with fanatical zeal, in homes, schools, mosques, and even government offices and functions, the English language is often openly resented. Unfortunately, attitudes towards other indigenous Nigerian languages in these states is also rather generally negative because of the implicit faith in the supremacy of the Hausa language. Thus, except for Hausa- speaking people who have intermarried with, and settled in Igbo and Yoruba-speaking communities such as Onitsha, Owerri, Ogbomoso, Ibadan, Sagamu (cf. Joshua, 1991), most Hausa-speaking people will not go out of their way to learn a Nigerian language, no matter the legal force behind a language policy requiring them to do so. The plain truth is that they simply find no motivation for learning another Nigerian language: they consider themselves as requiring neither English nor another Nigerian language for vertical social mobility in the Nigerian society in which most of the power-brokers and destiny-shapers that matter are Hausa-speaking. People belonging to non-Hausa-speaking groups seem to perceive that Hausa speakers have the mistaken notion that they are destined to rule Nigeria forever. This attitude is resisted by non-Hausa speakers in Nigeria and could have negative effects towards whatever function is assigned to the Hausa language, which is one of the majority languages in Nigeria. Interestingly, as noted earlier, the April 1990 coup plotters exploited their knowledge of the existence of such a feeling among non-Hausa-speaking Nigerians in naively declaring that some states in the northern part of Nigeria, all predominantly Hausa- speaking, were to be excised from the country. Studies would need to be done on how such attitudes, very commonplace in multilingual societies, can be gradually changed towards the direction postulated by the language planning policies, for their very existence is a negative dynamo for tearing apart and frustrating language planning efforts. d) The Administrative/Political Context Instability and lack of continuity in the administrative and political machinery are crucial factors that have successfully militated against effective language planning in Nigeria. Since 1960 when Nigeria became independent, there have been eight different regimes, some not lasting more than a few months only. Six of the eight regimes have been military; only two qualify to be called civilian. In essence, six of the regimes have made their way to the governance of the country by the use of the barrel of the gun. Different regimes, both military and civilian, are constantly under coup threats. Coup plotters always have one social, political, or economic reason or another for wanting to overthrow the incumbent regime and it is characteristic of each new regime to discredit, underrate, undercut, or entirely cancel the plans - educational, linguistic, political, or otherwise, made by its predecessors. This kind of negative attitude in the administrative set-up, coupled with the fact of lack of continuity, resulting from frequent, non-systematic, or non-democratic change of governments and officials, does not augur well for planning in general and for language planning in particular. Given this scenario, common in many multilingual African

11 countries, and the fact that language planning decisions usually tend to have a sharp political cutting edge, it is not surprising, as noted earlier on, that many regimes consider indifference and inertia the most prudent language policy to adopt during their tenure. Consequently, where policies are formulated, there is often a lack of firm and decisive pronouncement on them that could ensure their implementation (cf. Afolayan, 1984). Afolayan notes further, for instance, that the language policies in Nigeria are not clearly stated and this creates loopholes that open the door for idiosyncratic interpretations that suit the whims and caprices of individual states and teachers. The National Policy on Education as it relates to language reads thus: "Government will ensure that the medium of instruction will be primarily the mother tongue or the language of the immediate community (in the case of the pre-primary education); and Government will see to it that the medium of instruction in the primary school is initially the mother tongue or the language of the immediate community and, at a later stage, English (in the case of the primary and post-primary education)." (National Policy on Education, 1977; P-6) As far as the implementation of the above policies and other related aspects, which we need not go into here, such as the developing of orthographies are concerned, we are still not anywhere near the promised land. Instead, with several regimes, precisely three since 1977, we have been involved in several wilderness wanderings and lack of funds, lack of coordination, lack of firm implementation proposals threaten to make us only see the promised land with our eyes without being able to get there. Other dangers on the way to the promised land abound. For example, pre-primary education, mostly private in most states of the Federation, is mainly conducted in English. In fact, the better the competence in English of the pupils in such schools, the more highly esteemed the school is considered to be and the more will be the number of the children of the elites flocking into such schools. If children in a pre-primary school cannot speak more than their mother tongues, the pre-primary school readily acquires a reputation of being a poor or bad school, because the pupils cannot "even speak simple English." Interestingly, the wealthy and well to do policy makers and implementers themselves usually prefer to send their own children to specialized pre- primary schools where the standard of English is high. Most preachings about the use of the mother tongues in pre-primary and primary schools could therefore be likened to a preacher telling his congregation "Do as I say, but not as I do." It is an open secret, for instance, that many highly placed and wealthy Nigerians including presidents, governors, ministers, commissioners, businessmen, and academics, etc. who can afford it, usually prefer to train their children abroad where the standard of English and education are considered very good than in Nigerian institutions where the standard of English is considered to be poor and falling. Similarly, in Uganda, it is reported that all primary and pre-primary schools are English medium. Also in Transkei, English is said to be the language of instruction (cf. Dirven, 1988; p. 14). Poor co-ordination is another problem-prone aspect of the administrative context of

12 language planning in Africa. In Nigeria, for instance, several government agencies are mandated to implement the language policy in education. They include the National Language Centre, the Departments of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages in Nigerian universities, Ministries of Education (both Federal and States). Each of these has to interpret what the concept of "immediate community" means; and in addition, there is the semantics of "at a later stage" for the introduction of English. Improper and poor administrative coordination of the different agencies are the bane of language planning policy implementation in many parts of Africa. Such weak administrative infrastructure, obviously, is not conducive for successfully following the different stages involved in language planning such as those of policy formulation, codification, elaboration, standardization, and implementation. Every implementing agency does what is convenient and we have too many cooks spoiling the broth. Finally, another sad dimension of the administrative and political context of language planning in many African countries is that many people that matter as far as the administrative and political set-up are concerned, do not count as far as awareness of the processes of language planning is concerned. In other words, linguists, sociolinguists, Applied linguists, etc. who are supposed to be experts in language planning issues, are, at times, not involved in very crucial policy formulation and decision taking forums relating to language planning. Consequently, ignorant people formulate supremely ignorant policies which do not recognize or respect the "cultural integrity" of minority groups (Abraham and Troike, 1972). Such policies merely create a "linguistic prison" for learners and turn language issues into a linguistic warfare for members of society at large, courtesy of their insensitivity to the sociolinguistic context of language contact. e) The Educational Context The real thorny tragedy and casualty of the language planning context in Africa is that of an atmosphere of mass illiteracy, a consequence of poorly developed educational systems. Mass illiteracy as a bitter truth of the context, undercuts every genuine effort and all dimensions of language planning policies, particularly as they relate to minority language treatment. Whereas it is a known truth that the level of literacy in most African countries is very low, perhaps below 25% on the average, the level of literacy in the mother tongues is even dismally lower. Of the less than 30% or so literate Nigerians, for example, still less than 5% are literate in the indigenous languages. In other words, though many Nigerian elites can read and write English, they cannot read and write their own mother tongues even in cases where orthographies have been developed for them. Most cannot even write a simple informal letter to their parents in their mother tongue. The consequence of this unfortunate educational context of language planning in most African countries is that literacy has come to be equated with the ability to read and write the language of the colonial masters. Unfortunately, no amount of "linguistic nationalism", to use the words of Inglehart and

13 Woodward (1972; p.375), has been able to change the situation. Mass illiteracy in indigenous languages perpetuates the dominance of the colonial languages in the national affairs of most African countries. A recent, mini-scale survey of language use in Nigeria2, which included subjects from different professions, showed the following revealing results of the mother tongues in comparison with English:

Very clearly, the above data, in spite of its numerous limitations, demonstrates what is already well known - the predominance of English in both written and oral mediums in offices. The principal reason for this is that the mother tongues have not yet been recognized and respected as serious vehicles for education or information transmission in strictly formal settings. Most of the subjects of the mini-scale research reported above have gone through the educational system in Nigeria, which extols English and belittles the mother tongues, thereby continuing to perpetuate illiteracy in the indigenous languages; this is the bane of any effort to develop them. If the statement about illiteracy in indigenous languages is true even for the so-called major languages, which, supposedly, have received great

2 The data on which the survey results were based were collected by two of my post-graduate students: Mrs. Joyce Emuchay and Mr. L. A. Adekayero; I am grateful to them for permission to reflect their efforts in this paper.

14 governmental attention, then it can be imagined how appalling the rate of illiteracy would be for the minority languages which have not yet received any serious official recognition in the national scheme of things. Since they constitute neither a passport to upward social mobility nor to the locus of political power, many of their speakers do not see anything good coming out of their being studied or being made vehicles of education. Consequently, any attempt to encourage literacy in them is virtually interpreted as a diabolical attempt by the national power brokers to completely cut off the minorities from the national power source by the use of a subtle linguistic weapon. This unfortunate contextual dimension of language planning stifles information dissemination since only a small minority is literate in English, even though over 90% of all the languages in Nigeria are neither used on radio nor on television. The long and short of this is that a sizeable proportion of Nigerians is daily short- circuited from knowledge of the goings-on within the country simply because functions have not yet been allocated to the languages they understand in such a way as to enable them to participate in national affairs. This, unfortunately, has very adverse repercussions for language implementation and general mass mobilization efforts. All the contextual factors discussed thus far, even though treated as if they were discrete variables in the language planning scenario, are, in reality, mutually compounding and complicating in their interactive potentials for demobilizing and frustrating language planning efforts in African multilingual countries.

General Trends in Language Planning Policy Options in Multilingual Nations The language policy options adopted by most African countries can be briefly summarized as belonging to the following broad trends: a) Policies that extol one exoglossic language such as English and belittle all indigenous endoglossic languages. In countries adopting such policy, indigenous languages become thinner and thinner in influence and stature as they are fed on crumbs dropping from language policy and planning tables, while the exalted exoglossic language feeds fatter and fatter in the glare of publicity and maximum attention and utilization. b) Policies that extol one major endoglossic language such as Swahili and belittle the exoglossic language and other endoglossic languages. The situation in Tanzania, with about 100 languages all with comparable numbers of speakers, roughly parallels this policy. Smallness of the different ethnolinguistic units assisted the selection of Swahili as the national language (cf. Whiteley, 1971). Political tension and rivalry have full sway among the speakers of the neglected indigenous languages and the fortunate chosen language. The language of colonial dominance, now deliberately jettisoned because of frantic efforts to throw off the colonial incubus that goes along with it, is, in many quarters, still preferred by the minority educated elite power brokers and destiny shapers. In Kenya, for instance, where

15 there is a relatively small number of languages which are able to compete fiercely with Swahili for the enviable position of a national language, the policy of introducing Swahili as a national language met with serious problems and cut- throat competition which has resulted in the English language further strengthening its position and emerging the winner (cf. Whiteley, 1971). c) Policies that extol several selected, normally endoglossic majority languages as well as one exoglossic language. This kind of policy is exemplified by Nigeria, in which one endoglossic national language has been difficult to select because of political rivalries between the officially institutionalized "major languages." Unfortunately, the remaining endoglossic languages tend to be belittled in such a policy. Consequently, while all the endoglossic languages engage in conflict among each other, the single exoglossic language divides, rules, plunders, and takes the booty as it flies high in fame in all spheres of the body politic of the nation. Its very presence and its concomitant dominant influence demobilizes language policy planners and blinds their eyes to the need to plan at all. d) Another language policy option is that in which all endoglossic languages are belittled and the exoglossic language is exalted. The situation in Transkei is probably close to this policy. e) Finally, we have policies that create diglossic situations: An exoglossic language is extolled in official circles and domains while an endoglossic language is extolled in unofficial and informal domains. This kind of policy gives the mistaken impression that endoglossic indigenous languages cannot be serious vehicles for modern thought. The inevitable consequence is that the exoglossic language continues to wax stronger and stronger and may even grow to overthrow the endoglossic languages in their official and informal functions. Undoubtedly, there are overlaps in the general trends recognized above and one country could belong to more than one of the categories. It does seem to me, however, that perhaps with a few exceptions, most language planning policies in Africa can be made to fit into one or a combination of the categories recognized above.

Some Traits of a Forward-looking Language Planning Policy for a Multilingual Context In this paper, I hope to have shown that African countries are bedevilled by heterogeneous contextual variables that, if not identified, addressed, and properly managed, could seriously jeopardize any realistic attempt to plan effectively, implement efficiently, and evaluate language planning policies thoroughly and successfully. For a language planning policy in an African multilingual context to be effective, and forward looking, it must, to my mind, have the following minimal basic ingredients: 1. Pragmatically, as well as in principle and practice, there must be a recognition, understanding, and respect for the multilingual context. It would be clear that both

16 exoglossic and endoglossic languages have come to stay and are part of the reality of the situation for which planning has to be made. It is no use robbing Peter to pay Paul: that is, one language should not be choked out of existence by policy plans simply because there is the desire to create an existence for another. All existing languages need to be consciously and deliberately accepted and systematically rather than haphazardly planned for. Such a frame of mind or conceptualization of language planning cannot but spur on planners to do a fact-finding survey on the number of existing mother tongues and second language speakers of each language, their socio-linguistic status, whether or not there are orthographies in each language, the demographic distribution of languages, etc. As noted earlier, such fact finding has been attempted in Ethiopia. 2. No language planning policy can prosper unless planners avoid the tendency to downgrade the indigenous languages, especially those categorized as minority languages whose people, on the aggregate, are usually in the majority when compared with speakers of the main languages. Downgrading or belittling indigenous languages has adverse implications because of strong attachments to a particular language among ethnolinguistic groups. Strong negative attitudes towards particular languages could result in the forcing a horse to the river but not being able to make it drink water-syndrome. Human beings learn languages that they want to, or are motivated to learn. When they, for any reason, have a negative attitude towards a particular language and its speakers, any attempt to force them to learn it will usually end in futility. In essence, planners need to be keenly sensitive to ingrained language loyalties and attitudes before formulating language policies. Minority language treatment (Appel and Muyskeen, 1987), that is, the planned use of minority languages in education, administration, and public life for the sake of minority language survival and maintenance, is also a sine qua non for the prosperity of language planning in multilingual contexts. When the speakers of minority languages perceive that the nation has a stake in their own languages as well, they will feel part of the nation and will be more ready to co-operate in ensuring the success of language policies. Moreover, the natural tendency is to belittle the minority languages as not being matters of priority. Iwara (1988; pp.24- 25) has even gone as far as to suggest that a minority language be selected as the national language in Nigeria. While one appreciates that Iwara's proposals would be bedevilled by several difficulties, it, nevertheless, demonstrates clearly the extent to which attention needs to be placed on the need for minority language treatment in multilingual contexts. 3. Another major trait of a forward-looking policy in an African multilingual country is that it should see the colonial language of dominance in a proper perspective. It should neither be made a scapegoat nor an overlord. Its role should be accepted

17 and respected, even if considered ultimately temporary, especially in education. Policies formulated overnight and executed overnight to throw off the language of colonial dominance because of its presumed colonial trappings or its connotation of linguistic imperialism do more harm than good and merely create avoidable political tension. Rather, deliberate, firm, and long-term planning is required to ensure that even though the colonial language is accepted, its acceptance should not be such as to make all indigenous languages nothing by comparison. In other words, acceptance is not glorification. In essence, whereas the unnecessary superordinate status of colonial languages in most African countries should be checked, it is not healthy or helpful for an attitude of hostility to be developed by policy planners or members of the community at large towards them. 4. For language policy to succeed in an African multilingual setting, the active participation and encouragement of committed individual and non-governmental corporate interest groups should be enlisted, especially in language development and maintenance efforts. This is because in many African countries, anything of gargantuan proportion with many faces and political cutting edges like language planning left for the government alone to implement seems doomed to failure because whereas everybody is part of government, none in particular is government. The general I-don't-care-attitude of indifference that dooms most government projects to failure could strangulate buoyant language policies and cause pre-mature death before policy implementation. In view of frequent changes in government in many African countries and the poor administrative and governmental machinery alluded to earlier, the need for the involvement of individuals and non-governmental agencies in every aspect of language planning is even more imperative for ensuring continuity and practical action such as the preparation of orthographies, the commissioning of primers and the publishing of newspapers in indigenous languages, etc. Such individuals should also be involved in other corpus and status planning activities like the allocation of functions to languages, and the modernization, cultivation, and elaboration of particular languages. Other language development activities in which they could be involved include the expansion of the lexicon of indigenous languages through processes such as compounding, derivation, a combination of compounding and derivation, borrowing in a phonologically adapted form, expansion of the meaning of existing words, use of words from dialects, lexical change, and spontaneous formation of new words (cf. Appel and Muyskeen, 1987; p.52). If the embers of effective language planning are fanned by such individuals and non-governmental agencies, they may be difficult to quench or completely blow out by the various contextual variables bedevilling language planning highlighted in this paper. Famous examples of individual language planners are Ben Yehuda, in Israel and Ivar Aasen, a Norwegian teacher;

18 these are worth emulating (Appel and Muyskeen, 1987; p.47). 5. Another very necessary crucial ingredient of language planning in a multilingual African country, indeed very crucial in view of the numerous contextual variables discussed earlier, is the need for the existence of a built-in implementation logistics. At this juncture, one might note that some African countries have fairly workable language policies that would have been quite sociolinguistically and pedagogically appropriate for their peculiar contexts. Unfortunately, however, such policies are often spoilt and strangulated by poor, improperly coordinated implementation. There is therefore a need for us, in the African multilingual context at least, besides talking about corpus and status planning, to also seriously talk about what I would call "Implementation logistics planning", especially in view of the peculiar linguistic, socio-political, administrative, psychological, and educational complex contextual profiles that are enough to kill the best of policies and turn them into a laughing stock. Such implementation logistics planning should go into the practical nitty gritties of policy implementation bearing in mind the different contexts of each country. 6. Related to all the ingredients identified above, a forward looking policy must include a machinery for constantly looking backwards through hindsight and forwards through foresight, in order to receive feedback on every aspect of the contextual variables described earlier and to better assess the impact, import, and effects of language planning. Any language planning process in the African multilingual context that lacks the above essential ingredients risks pre-mature death.

Conclusion In view of the heterogenous, often unique and complex profiles of the context of language planning in most African countries which constantly threaten to choke and completely strangulate the most dynamic and foresighted of language planning efforts, there is a need to consider institutionalizing implementation logistics planning, which should relate to the pragmatics of implementation and should have a built-in shock absorber for absorbing all linguistic, socio-political, administrative/ political, psychological, and educational shocks with which the African multilingual countries are peculiarly characterized. Given the complex network of contextual profiles in African multilingual settings, it would seem, in most cases and to a large extent, that evolutionary, rather than revolutionary language planning changes would have greater promise for effectiveness.

19 Bibliography Abraham, D. R. & C. R, Troike (eds.) (1972) Language and Cultural Diversity in American Education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.; Prentice Hall. Adegbija, Efurosibina (1989a): The Implications of the Language of Instruction for Nationhood: An Illustration with Nigeria" ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 85-86; pp.25-50. Adegbija, Efurosibina (1989b): "Lexico-Semantic Variation in Nigerian English" World Englishes 8:2; pp.165-177. Adegbija, Efurosibina (1989c): Teaching English in Nigeria: The Importance of the Pragmatic and Sociolinguistic Context" Language Culture and Curriculum 2:3; pp. 195-202. Afolayan, Adebisi (1984): The English Language in Nigerian Education as an Agent of Proper Multilingual and Multicultural Development" Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 5:1; pp. 1-22. Appel, René & Pieter Muyskeen (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London; Edward Arnold. Bamgbose, Ayo (1971): The English Language in Nigeria" in: Spencer, J. (ed.) The English Language in West Africa. London; Longman. Bender, M. L. et al. (1976) Language in Ethiopia. London; Edward Arnold. Dirven, René (1989) Contact and Conflict Linguistics in South Africa. Duisburg; L.A.U.D., B 208. Engholm, Eva (1965) Education through English. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Essien, O. E. (1982): "Languages of the Cross River State" Journal of the Linguistics Association of Nigeria (JOLAN) 1; pp.117-126. Inglehart, R. & M. Woodward (1972): "Language Conflicts and the Political Community" in: Giglioli, Pier Paolo (ed.) Language and Social Context. Middlesex, England; Penguin Books. Iwara, Alexander (1988) Nigeria and the National Language Policy Question. Ibadan; RELS Monographs. Joshua, Adebayo (1991): "A Sociolinguistic Study of Bilingualism in Shagamu"; unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Ahmadu Bello University; Zaria. Kirk-Greene, A. H. M. (1971) Crisis and Conflict in Nigeria I: January 1966 - July 1967. London; OUP. Liebersen, Stanley & Edward J. McCabe (1978): "Domains of Language Usage and Mother Tongue Shift in Nairobi" International Journal of the Sociology of Language 18; pp.69-81. National Policy on Education (1977) Lagos; Federal Government Press. Osaji, Bede (1979) Language Survey of Nigeria. Quebec; International Centre for Research on Bilingualism. Whitley, W. H. (1971): "Some Factors Influencing Language Policies in Eastern Africa" in: Rubin, J. & B. Jernudd (eds.) Introduction: Language Planning as an Element in Modernization XIII-XIV.; pp.141-158.