Sociolinguistic ISSN: 1750-8649 (print) Studies ISSN: 1750-8657 (online) Article African sociolinguistics between urbanity and rurality Susanne Mohr and Helene Steigertahl Abstract In African sociolinguistic studies a dichotomy between approaches focusing on urban centres with newly developing linguistic codes and languages used by the elite, as opposed to approaches concentrating on language documentation in rural areas has long been prevalent. That dichotomy has often been the point where English and African studies diverge in that the first have traditionally concentrated on urban locations, while the latter have focused on rural settings. The special issue at hand brings together sociolinguistic studies in urban and rural Africa as two intertwined spaces, e.g. with regard to high mobility in many African areas. Thus, it directly relates to several of the key issues discussed in Sociolinguistic Studies, such as language planning, language policies as well as sociolinguistic theory development. KEYWORDS: urban and rural settings, African languages, varieties of English, language policy and planning Affiliation Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway email: [email protected] Bayreuth University, Germany email: [email protected] SOLS VOL 14.3 2020 247–256 https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.38787 © 2020, EQUINOX PUBLISHING 248 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES 1 Introduction Sociolinguistic studies in Africa have recently focused on urban areas, where globalization and communication are supposedly taking place, while rural Africa is considered ‘backward’ (Wang, Spotti, Juffermans, Cornips, Kroon and Blommaert, 2013:14). However, a general distinction between studies from the field of English linguistics and those in an African studies tradition can be observed: while the former focus on urban centres, the latter concentrate on rural settings. For example, large-scale projects such as the International Corpus of English (Greenbaum, 1996), as well as individual studies (e.g. Skandera, 2003; Arua, 2004; de Kadt, 2004; van Rooy, 2007; Bekker, 2008; Mutonya, 2008; Kadenge, 2009; Hoffmann, 2011; Kasanga, 2012; Fuchs, Gut and Zoneye, 2013; Stell, 2014; Zerbian, 2015; Toefy, 2017), usually obtain their data from capitals, urban centres or universities. Most of the data on African Englishes has been collected in these urban spaces among the educated elite. African languages tend to be neglected by these investigations. Studies such as Michieka (2009) on English in rural Kenya are relatively rare exceptions. On the other hand, African linguistics seems to be fascinated with rural settings, as this special issue shows. Data collected in rural areas rather stems from less widely used or endangered languages (see Sands [2018] for a recent overview of language endangerment [and revitalization], Kilian-Hatz, 2003; Bagamba, 2007; König and Heine, 2008; Robson, 2011; Batibo, 2013, for case studies) and only a small amount of research has been conducted on youth languages or English(es) in these settings (Wang, Spotti, Juffermans, Cornips, Kroon and Blommaert, 2013; Nassenstein, 2017 are rare exceptions). This creates an unrealistically presumed dichotomy of language use in rural and urban Africa – a setting that is in fact highly dynamic. This special issue brings together sociolinguistic studies in rural and urban Africa as two intertwined spaces. Some of the ensuing questions are: Are rural and urban Africa two different linguistic settings? Do language use and attitudes differ in rural and urban Africa? Why is rural language use mostly neglected in World Englishes research? Are sociolinguistic methods equally applicable to urban and rural spaces or are new frameworks needed to analyse them adequately? 2 Urbanized studies on African varieties of English As mentioned above, many studies on African varieties of English were collected in urban settings among the educated elite of different countries. This becomes clear when looking at some of the abovementioned studies in detail. AFRICAN SOCIOLINGUISTICS BETWEEN URBANITY AND RURALITY 249 Skandera (2003) conducted research on Kenyan English as a component of the ICE corpora (Greenbaum, 1996) and therefore presumably had to restrict his data collection to a certain group of participants, such as those with a university degree. His participants indeed include university students (Skandera, 2003:65) and he was supported by Moi University in Eldoret and Kenyatta University in Nairobi (Skandera, 2003:xiii). Areas other than these very urban settings were not mentioned with regard to data gathering. For a description of what is called Botswana English, Arua (2004:258) collected data during a period of six years, viz. between 1998 and 2003, at the University of Botswana in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana. In his article, he states that he observed Botswana English by assessing 620 students’ assignments. Again, an urban and university setting was chosen for data collection. The reasons for this largely remain unclear; the researcher only states that he chose this setting as he was based there (Arua 2004:258), i.e., as a matter of convenience. Van Rooy (2007) conducted research on Black South African English in different settings, similar to the approach taken by Hoffmann (2011). Although his participants were students, he not only gathered data in large urban settings such as Potchefstroom but also from smaller towns such as Mafikeng, though this cannot be considered rural (van Rooy, 2007:28). The reasons behind Van Rooy’s choice of participants are not made clear in the article. Bekker’s (2008) thesis title suggests that he works on South African English in general. Later it becomes clear that he worked on so-called White South African English, which is also considered a standard and reference variety, and therefore his study includes white speakers of English only (Bekker, 2008:105). His participants came from ‘a variety of urban centres in South Africa and from a higher end of the socioeconomic scale’ (Bekker, 2008:105). It is possible that ‘urban’ is connoted as ‘educated’ and ‘economically well off’ in this case. What is more, his solely female participants are linguistics students at a South African University (Bekker, 2008:120), again a hint at choosing a population out of convenience or from ‘what was at hand’. Kadenge (2009:160) also chose an urban setting for his data collection on what has been termed Zimbabwean English: the University of Zimbabwe which is based in the country’s capital of Harare. Students were chosen as participants here; reasons are not given by Kadenge (2009:160). Hoffmann (2011) worked on so-called White Kenyan English as one of the lesser-known varieties of English. His data collection seems extraordinary in contrast to previous studies, as he gathered data in both urban and rural contexts: the interviews conducted with children stem from the rather rural setting of Gilgil near the Nakuru National Park, while the interviews with adults were conducted 250 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDIES in the urban surroundings of Nairobi, where he was based and supported as a researcher (Hoffmann, 2011:295). It is stated that Gilgil was chosen as the children were based in a school there (Hoffmann, 2011:295). However, the article does not offer an explanation of why adults could not be recorded there. Stell (2014:228) gathered data at the University of Namibia in Windhoek, the capital of the country, using the friend of a friend approach, to analyse ‘uses and functions of English in Namibia’s multiethnic settings’. He calls the English used in this setting ‘Namibian English’ (Stell, 2014:227). Reasons for choosing this urban and educated setting are not given. Finally, Toefy (2017) presents an account of a phonological feature (the KIT- split) in what has been labelled Coloured South African English. While recruiting participants in middle- and working-class environments, which is also remarkable in World Englishes research, Toefy also recruited her participants in the ‘greater Cape Town’ area (Toefy, 2017:346). Since she was specifically interested in the social class of the participants and also rated them on a socioeconomic status index which was based, among other factors, on area of residence, recruiting participants in the urban setting of Cape Town in fact made sense. Calculating the participants’ socioeconomic status for a rural area might have been more difficult or she might have ended up with participants not fulfilling her criteria. Having assessed these works on potential English varieties used in African countries, it seems as if the African varieties of English, as they are documented to date, are often somewhat educated varieties, with labels such as ‘Kenyan English’, e.g. being slightly misleading, in that the varieties are not used by all Kenyans, for instance, but by a small elite class only. It remains unclear in many cases why mainly urban and university settings were selected for data collection. Were ‘educated’ participants perhaps chosen because they were at hand, since the researchers were situated in these settings, as some studies suggest? Were university students selected because the data included in the ICE corpora, for example, requires higher education in L2 English-speaking countries? Were reasons just not put into the publications? Why are only very few participants from less urban and rural areas chosen? In the following, we discuss these methodological questions in light of language distribution in Africa and the practicality of data collection.