Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20 Approaching micro-level planning from an intelligibility perspective: a case study from Pentecost Island, Vanuatu Cindy Schneider & Charlotte Gooskens To cite this article: Cindy Schneider & Charlotte Gooskens (2016): Approaching micro-level planning from an intelligibility perspective: a case study from Pentecost Island, Vanuatu, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2016.1212865 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1212865 Published online: 02 Aug 2016. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20 Download by: [Dr Cynthia Schneider] Date: 03 August 2016, At: 05:13 JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1212865 Approaching micro-level planning from an intelligibility perspective: a case study from Pentecost Island, Vanuatu Cindy Schneidera and Charlotte Gooskensb aDiscipline of Linguistics, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, Australia; bDepartment of Applied Linguistics, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The Vanuatu government has recently implemented a policy of Received 13 April 2016 vernacular literacy. Children are now to receive the first three years of Accepted 5 July 2016 schooling in a vernacular language. Needless to say, in a country with KEYWORDS less than 300,000 people [Vanuatu National Statistics Office 2016 Mutual intelligibility; Accessed January 4, 2016. http://vnso.gov.vu/] and more than 100 language endangerment; indigenous languages, some classrooms have more than one L1. In language planning; such cases, the language policy recommends that the variety with the educational language policy; most native speakers should be promoted. This is a good solution for dialects those speakers of the larger language, but what impact does such a policy have on the children whose L1 is not included in the curriculum, and who are instructed in a vernacular language that is not their own? To answer this question, we conducted intelligibility tests across closely related varieties of northern and central Vanuatu. We conclude that in villages where children already receive a good deal of exposure to other language varieties in their daily lives, implementation of the government’s language policy is a viable option. However, we make this point with the caveat that what is practical and beneficial for literacy education is not necessarily optimal for the preservation of small endangered language varieties. The evolution of educational language policy in Vanuatu Downloaded by [Dr Cynthia Schneider] at 05:13 03 August 2016 Vanuatu is one of the most linguistically diverse nations in the world, whether measured in terms of languages spoken per capita, or languages in relation to land mass (François et al. 2015, 8). The population is less than 300,000 (Vanuatu National Statistics Office 2016) and, depending on one’s estimate, there are between 105 and 138 indigenous languages still spoken across the island archi- pelago (although many are endangered) (François et al. 2015,5–6). Furthermore, English and/or French are spoken by the educated elite; these languages are a by-product of Vanuatu’s colonial legacy before the country became independent in 1980. Finally, the creole lingua franca, Bislama, is widely used to communicate across language boundaries. Most children master Bislama by their teenage years, and many well before then. In families where parents come from different L1 back- grounds, some children even speak Bislama as a first language. Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Vanuatu (1980) makes the following pronounce- ments about the status of English, French, Bislama, and the nation’s indigenous languages. CONTACT Cindy Schneider [email protected] © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 C. SCHNEIDER AND C. GOOSKENS National and official languages (1) The national language of the Republic of Vanuatu is Bislama. The official languages are Bislama, English, and French. The principal languages of education are English and French. (2) The Republic of Vanuatu shall protect the different local languages which are part of the national heritage, and may declare one of them as a national language. The Constitution takes a pluralistic stance towards Vanuatu’s many languages, but English and French are accorded a special status because they are promoted as the principal languages of edu- cation. Yet the implications of this approach are sobering. According to a document produced by the Ministry of Education (2006,33–34), Vanuatu ranked poorly among Pacific Island nations in terms of its educational outcomes. The Ministry of Education found that only 74% of primary age children were enrolled in school (the second-lowest rate in the Pacific), and that two-thirds of students were at least a year behind their age group in literacy performance. The reasons behind these disappointing results are many, but one factor could be students’ language difficulties at school, where they have been expected in theory at least to do all their learning in a colonial language that most have no exposure to in their daily lives. Accordingly the Ministry of Education (2006, 20) now recommends that students be taught vernacular literacy in Pre-school, Year 1, and Year 2. More specifically (since there are more than 100 vernacular languages), it recommends the use of ‘approved vernacular languages’ (Ministry of Education 2006, 22, emphasis ours) or ‘selected strong vernacular languages’ (Ministry of Education 2006, 33, emphasis ours). But what is meant by ‘approved’ or ‘selected strong’ languages? Vanuatu’s new language policy expands on the Ministry’s recommen- dations, explaining that the language of instruction should be ‘a vernacular language which could be Bislama, French or English if used by majority of children’ (Ministry of Education 2012, 18, emphasis ours). In other words, children from Pre-school through to Year 2 are to be instructed in the first language spoken by most students in any given classroom. This is a good solution for the children who are majority language speakers, but what about the children who are in the minority? It is difficult to know exactly how many children are in this type of situation. The Ministry of Education and Training (2013, 22) reports on the number of Early Childhood Education centres teaching in a vernacular, and the number of children enrolled in vernacular pre-schools. However, the individual vernaculars of schools/students are not specified in the statistics and therefore there is no way of knowing about the extent to which vernacular language classrooms host more than one vernacular. However, it is safe to say that in any village (see Figure 1) where speakers of more than one variety live in close proximity to each other, the school in that village would have classrooms Downloaded by [Dr Cynthia Schneider] at 05:13 03 August 2016 hosting students from more than one language background. Would instruction in a language that is not a child’s L1 be of any use to that child? To answer this question, we conducted intelligibility tests across closely related varieties of northern and central Pentecost Island. The varieties of Pentecost Island Pentecost (cf Figure 1) is a typical Vanuatu island in the sense that many language varieties are packed into a relatively small area. Pentecost is 62 kilometres from north to south, and 12 kilometres across (Gray 2012, 8), yet it is home to four (debatably five) language varieties and a number of smaller dialects. Our tests focused exclusively on intelligibility between the Raga language of North Pentecost (with about 6500 speakers) and the Apma language of Central Pentecost (with about 7800 speakers) (Lynch and Crowley 2001; current population is likely higher due to natural increase since 2001). Raga is a remarkably homogeneous language, with minimal variation across speakers (Gray 2012, 16). Raga shares 60% cognacy with Apma, according to Gray (2012, 14); this is based on his sample JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3 Figure 1. Present-day languages of Pentecost Island (source: personal communication, Andrew Gray, 19 July 2016). Purported language boundaries are drawn in solid lines; purported dialect boundaries are drawn in dotted lines. The map shows large villages only; smaller hamlets are not represented. The villages and language varieties under study in this paper are highlighted: RA = Raga, Downloaded by [Dr Cynthia Schneider] at 05:13 03 August 2016 SK = Suru Kavian, SR = Suru Rabwanga, SM = Suru Mwerani. of 247 words (personal communication, Andrew Gray, 30 May 2012). According to Tryon (1976, 106), the two languages share 52% cognacy based on a sample of 242 words. Our own small testing sample of 80 words showed a cognacy rate of 54% between Raga and Apma. Apma is purported to have three dialects, which are Suru Rabwanga, Suru Mwerani, and Suru Kavian. Suru Rabwanga and Suru Mwerani share 99% cognacy, and the speakers of these two var- ieties have no problems in understanding one another. Suru Kavian only has 90% cognacy with the other two dialects, according to Gray (2012, 14). Results from our own research reveal an even lower cognacy rate of 87.5% between Suru Kavian and Suru Mwerani. In the course of her fieldwork in Central Pentecost over the past 13 years, the first author has observed there to be intelligibility pro- blems between Suru Kavian and the other two dialects of Apma. These observations are supported by informal conversations where speakers of Suru Kavian, Suru Rabwanga, and Suru Rabwanga have frequently told the first author that they consider Suru Kavian to be a distinctive language, separate from the other two varieties.