The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle
Читать онлайн книгу.
added to the list of the Union's official languages. Note the escape phrase, “if possible.” It indicates that, although the AU calls on its member states to promote African languages in the higher domains, the AU itself does not seem to be bound to use these languages in the conduct of its own business. The response of the member states to the AU's call is all too predictable. Consider, for instance, the constitution of countries such as Nigeria and South Africa, as presented in the extracts that follow. In both cases, escape clauses are marked by the use of modal auxiliary verbs such as may or must, along with complementizers such as when, where, and if. Accordingly, in Nigeria, parliamentary debates are usually conducted through the medium of English, while in South Africa they are conducted mostly in English or occasionally in Afrikaans because the Constitution does not specify which 2 of the country's 11 official languages should be used in which province or by the national government.
Language clauses in the Nigerian Constitution read:
The business of the National Assembly shall be conducted in English, Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba when adequate arrangements have been made thereof (The Constitution, Section 55).
The business of the House of Assembly shall be conducted in English but the House may in addition to English conduct the business of the House of Assembly in one or more languages in the state as the House may by resolution approve (The Constitution, Section 97). [italics added] (Bamgbose, 2001, p. 193)
Language clauses in the South African Constitution read:
The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages. [italics added] (Republic of South Africa, 1996)
In some cases, African countries have adopted overt language policies that constitutionally ban the use of indigenous languages in public domains. In Malawi, Kenya, Sierra Leone, and Uganda, for instance, competence in English rather than in an African language is a requisite for election to public office. In the case of Uganda, it is reported that children must be competent in English to qualify for admission into the nursery schools. In this regard, Kwesiga (1994, p. 58) remarks sarcastically that “African mothers who have knowledge of English start teaching their children this language before they are born.”
In other cases, however, policy makers make statements that devalue the indigenous languages vis‐à‐vis excolonial languages. For instance, Bamgbose (2001) reports on the attitude of the legislators in Lagos, Nigeria, to the proposal that Yoruba, one of Nigeria's national languages, be used as the language of debate in the House of Assembly. He notes that the legislators rejected the proposal despite the fact that about 90% of them speak Yoruba as their mother tongue. The legislators themselves explain that they rejected Yoruba because its use “is capable of demeaning and reducing the intellectual capacity of legislators” [italics added] (Bamgbose, 2001, p. 190). The elite's contempt for the indigenous languages is betrayed by their double‐facedness in assigning official roles to these languages and thus suggesting equal status with former colonial languages.
The African Union and Prospects for the Indigenous African Languages
This final section explores the prospects for the indigenous African languages in education and other higher domains in the light of the AU's language policy declarations discussed previously. It argues that the cognitive advantages of mother tongue education cannot serve as the sole catalyst for promoting indigenous languages as the medium of instruction. Any attempt to promote the indigenous African languages in education must be made against an understanding of why there is such a high demand, whether genuine or artificially created, for former colonial languages in education and other domains. The use of former colonial languages in education is sustained mostly by the socioeconomic value with which these languages are associated. It is not an accident that English, for instance, is spreading around the world, and that many countries, including those with no colonial ties to Britain or the USA, are aggressively promoting the use of English in their educational systems. For instance, Tollefson (2002) reports that the governments of capitalist Korea and socialist Vietnam, and one must add communist China to this list, are taking serious steps to increase and improve English‐language education as part of broad economic development programs. In Africa, former French, Spanish, and Portuguese colonies are also aggressively promoting English by making the language a compulsory subject in their educational systems. Tollefson (2002) points out that the emphasis on English in these and other countries around the world comes with an implicit promise—that dedicating vast resources to the spread of English will yield concrete economic benefits.
The literature increasingly recognizes the importance of the relationship between language use and material outcomes in the success or failure of language policies (Paulston, 1988; Le Page, 1997; Nettle & Romaine, 2000). For instance, Paulston (1988) remarks that language planning efforts are most likely to be successful if they are supported by economic advantage or similar social incentives for the minority groups. Likewise, Nettle and Romaine (2000) note that true development of a political, economic, or social nature cannot take place unless there is also development of a linguistic nature.
If the African Union is genuinely keen to promote the indigenous languages, it must require its member states to formulate language policies that take into account the relationship between the indigenous languages and the economy and vest these languages with at least some of the privileges and perquisites that are currently the preserve of excolonial languages. It is only through the adoption and implementation of such policies that the majority of Africa's population will be able to access functional literacy in the indigenous languages and thus participate in the social, political, and economic development of the continent. As Fardon and Furniss (1994, p. 24) say, “the dialogue between the different discourses on language can be productive to the extent that each can identify with the aims of the others in favor of a broadly conceived program to empower languages users.” As long as the ruling African elite do not consider the promotion of the indigenous languages as an integral part of Africa's economic development program, and until these languages facilitate access to the wider society and economic advancement, their prospects will remain bleak, much as they have been throughout the past centuries.
SEE ALSO: Language and Globalization; Language and Identity; Linguistic Imperialism; Role of Linguistic Human Rights in Language Policy and Planning
References
1 Alexander, N. (1997). Language policy and planning in the new South Africa. African Sociological Review, 1(1), 82–98.
2 Balfour, R. J. (1999). Naming the father: Re‐examining the role of English as a medium of instruction in South African education. Changing English, 6(1), 103–13.
3 Bamgbose, A. (2001). Language policy in Nigeria: Challenges, opportunities and constraints. Keynote address at the Nigerian Millennium Sociolinguistics Conference, University of Lagos, Nigeria, August 16–18.
4 Bamgbose, A. (2006). Multilingualism and exclusion: Policy, practice and prospects. Keynote address at the Symposium on Multilingualism and Exclusion. University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, April 24–6.
5 Cultural Survival. (2001, June). Asmara Declaration on African Languages and Literatures. Retrieved March 25, 2019 from https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/asmara-declaration-african-languages-and-literatures
6 Djité, P. G. (2008). The sociolinguistics of development in Africa. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
7 Fardon, R., & Furniss, G. (Eds.). (1994). African languages, development and the state. New York, NY: Routledge.
8 Fishman, J. A. (1996). Introduction: Some empirical