The Context of Language Planning in Africa: an Illustration with Nigeria
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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,