CROSS-DIALECTAL ACCEPTANCE OF WRITTEN STANDARDS: TWO GHANAIAN CASE STUDIES by SUE ANN HASSELBRING submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY in the subject LINGUISTICS at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA PROMOTER: PROF LA BARNES JULY 2006 Student number 3104-437-9 I declare that CROSS-DIALECTAL ACCEPTANCE OF WRITTEN STANDARDS: TWO GHANAIAN CASE STUDIES is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. 9 November 2006 Signature Date Miss Sue A Hasselbring ABSTRACT Cross-dialectal acceptance of a written standard (CAWS) is essential for that standard to be used by speakers of divergent dialects of a language. Earlier works have focused on the influence of linguistic differences on comprehension of the standard, but little attention has been given the influence of socio-cultural and programmatic factors on acceptance of a standard. Case studies of the Lelemi and Likpakpaanl language development programmes provide information through which the socio-cultural and programmatic factors which influence CAWS can be identified. Due to the complex nature of the topic, various indicators are used to measure levels of acceptance of the written standard by speakers of each dialect. Socio-cultural factors which influence CAWS relate either to the language community’s degree of interdialectal communication or to their perception of being a unified people. These factors include social structure, governance, cultural and religious activities, and patterns of marriage, commerce, transportation and migration. The existence of extensive social networks and the role of opinion leaders were also influential Activities of the two language development programmes which positively influenced CAWS included those which informed and involved speakers of all dialects of the language. These activities built on the existing levels of unity and inter-dialectal communication by using existing social networks. The Lelemi programme involved speakers of all dialects more uniformly than did the Likpakpaanl programme. However, both programmes informed and involved speakers of all dialects to some extent. The dialect communities of each language did not equally accept the written standards. Acceptance appeared to correlate more strongly with programmatic factors than with socio- cultural or linguistic factors. This thesis provides a model for language teams to follow in 1) identifying socio-cultural factors which have the potential to influence CAWS; 2) applying knowledge about the socio-cultural situation to programme planning; and, 3) assessing levels of acceptance by speakers of each dialect. Key words: language development, language standardization, written standards, diffusion of innovations, orthography development, diffusion of innovations, non-standard dialects, minority languages i Acknowledgements I am extremely thankful for the assistance and encouragement of many people as I worked on this thesis. I am especially thankful to my parents for their encouragement throughout all my years of schooling. I love you! I could not have undertaken this research without the cooperation of the Lelemi and Likpakpaanl language communities. To the chiefs, the elders, the members of each community I visited: Kuabla o-o! Ni ni lituln pam! To the Buem Adult Literacy Programme staff and the Rural Integrated Literacy and Development Programme staff, the literacy supervisors, the literacy facilitators and the literacy learners. Thank you for working together to develop your language! Joseph, Vero, Isaiah, Emmanuel, Lucas, Yohanes, Francis, and Agnes, my faithful interpreters along with others who interpreted a single interview: Thank you for helping me communicate! Thank you for putting up with my American accent. Thank you for asking the same questions repeatedly in a single day. Thank you especially for clearly interpreting the responses! To each individual who provided a word list or participated in an interview or responded to a questionnaire: Thank you for your time, your patience, your insights. It is your knowledge that has made this study possible. Many thanks to everyone at GILLBT for their assistance with housing, communication, transport, archives, program files, advice, copies, etc. To each individual in Ghana who provided me a ride, loaned me a bike, gave me directions, served me a meal, or took care of some other need: What a gracious and caring nation you are! May you continue to welcome strangers into your midst with such warmth! I am thankful to many who have provided me accomodation both during the survey and as I have analyzed the data and written this thesis: Pat and Lee Hoffmeier, the Scharlach family, the Pfitzinger family, the Diko family, the Yanambe family, the Nniakyire family and Conrad and Brenda’s family. Thank you for caring for my physical needs and encouraging me in this study. To Bob, JoAnn and Pat, non-linguist friends who each read several chapters and gave me excellent suggestions, thank you! Sister Mary Steele, thank you for allowing this inquisitive researcher to stretch your memory back more than 40 years! Thank you for your love for the Likpakpaanl speakers and your service to them. Dr. Pat Davis, thank you for cheering me on as you read each chapter and provided valuable insights and suggestions. Dr. Andy Ring, thank you for your enthusiasm about this research from the first time you heard of it. Thank you for helping to make arrangements with the language teams, for introducing me to Ghana, for reading the chapters and sharing your insights. Professor Barnes, you have been an excellent guide. you have reined me in when I needed it and repeatedly amazed me with single simple questions that have aided me immensely in clarifying my ideas, organizing my thoughts, and getting beyond road blocks. Thank you! ii While gratefully acknowledging all the assistance I have received, I also admit that any errors in this thesis are fully my own. Above all, I give praise and glory to Almighty God the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. To him alone be glory, both now and forever! iii Table of Contents ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents...........................................................................................................................iv Table of Tables.............................................................................................................................viii Table of Figures.............................................................................................................................ix Abbreviations and acronyms used in this thesis.......................................................................... x 1 Chapter 1 The research problem .........................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................1 1.1 The context of the study ....................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Extensibility: balancing the desires of the people with the limitations of resources 3 1.1.2 Differences between established standards and new ones........................................5 1.1.3 The roles of comprehension and acceptance in extensibility ...................................6 1.1.4 Examples of languages with non-acceptance ...........................................................7 1.1.4.1 The Limba written standard..................................................................................7 1.1.4.2 The Grebo written standard..................................................................................8 1.2 Aims and hypotheses.........................................................................................................9 1.3 Scope and limitations .....................................................................................................10 1.4 Language development situation in Ghana....................................................................12 1.5 Definitions of terms and conventions used in this thesis ................................................14 1.5.1 Definitions of terms................................................................................................14 1.5.2 Conventions in spelling and transcription ..............................................................15 1.6 Organization of the dissertation.....................................................................................16 2 Chapter 2 Review of Literature ..........................................................................................17 2.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................17 2.1 Development of the written standard..............................................................................17 2.1.1 Variation as an inherent characteristic of language................................................19 2.1.2 Categories of variation and its impact on comprehension......................................21 2.1.3 The standardization process....................................................................................23