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