Reference Dialect in Yamba orthography development: the question of cultural equality, identity construction and traditional diplomacy (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Theory of Reference Dialect in Yamba Orthography Development: Revitalisation or Endangerment
Phonology, 2022
Orthography development over decades has been at the onset of mother tongue literacy, language revitalization and preservation. This was informed by the fact that language in its oral form run the risk of getting extinct gradually. The development of writing systems (orthographies) therefore, became necessary in different minority languages in order to bridge the gap between orality and the written form of languages. Many languages are endowed with many variants or dialects and for this reason, a variant is chosen for standardization. Many linguists have responded to this need by laying down criteria on how a reference dialect should be chosen among many variants. Over the years, this has not gone without problems as the speakers of the dialect not chosen either gave up learning to read and write the reference or dialect demonstrated a silent rejection of the standard form. At the inception of standardization of the language, the Yamba people were already opposed to the choice of the reference dialect. It was observed by Bradley (1986b) that there is a major problem in the usage of materials produced in the language using the Mbem dialect as reference. Despite the publication of the orthography statement Bradley (1986a), the Yamba language has remained essentially oral, thereby promoting the gradual death of the language. The attempt to revitalize the language using a single dialect has turned to promote the endangerment of 16 of the 17 dialects. Reference dialect theory therefore, singles out a dialect for revitalization thereby indirectly endangering the language. Developing a multidialectal orthography would be a block building process of safeguarding a language.
The Issue of Identity in the Developmental Efforts of Senegalese Local Languages from 2001 Onwards
Language as an identity marker has now become a clear fact and a generally shared assumption. Linguistic policies should then seek the development of all communities by empowering their respective languages to get them play a pivotal role in development strategies. In Senegal, from independance to present day, a number of twenty one languages have been promoted to the status of national language. This was acheived in two phases: the first concerned the former six national languages promoted between 1972 and 1975 and the latter concerned a larger set of smaller languages promoted from 2000 onwards. So for about 30 years, the number of national langues remained unchanged but in 15 years, it shot up drastically. This paper questions the reasons for such a fact and tries to demonstrate that identity was a deep concern in this process. The paper provides an overview of linguistic rights, and then revisits Senegal's linguistic policies. It also assess the role played by ethnic associations in codification processes to explain the sthrength and flows of such an approach. The language issue is much like that of human beings. From one source language, thousands others sprang. Some developed faster than others because history favored their speakers. The latter early understood that they were dreadful weapons that could help in the quest for power and directed them against others to impose a utopian homogenous view of the world. Then, several theories developed to legitimize this hyerarchical approach – diglossia. Languages were soon made to carry the identity of their speakers in many different ways: as people are differentiated by the data on their ID cards, languages are differentiated on the duality criteria as local vs international, national vs foreign, first vs second vs mother tongue. Sometimes they behave like us ; they make war in times of conflict when they are driven by imperialistic aims. Some will come out of the war unharmed while others will be endangered and some others will simply die. After the war they become partners in time of peace. Thus they can mutually borrow items, unite in blended codes and so on and so forth. This humanistic approach to the life of languages is a pretext to introduce the issue of the linguistic right of speakers which somehow guarantees a peaceful environment. As it is stated in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, the purpose is to make sure every language is given importance. This will assure a fair linguistic peace in the world which is the bedrock of peaceful social coexistence.2 Clearly, when the regulation of the use of languages through language policies is detrimental to the blossom of some communities, this opens the way to frustration, especially when we know that recognition of a community's linguistic rights gives them
More than half a century after the African Independences, many minority African languages are still excluded from the education systems of their speakers, a situation leading to their marginalisation as mediums of instruction in the schools and the literacy classes. Even for those languages that are becoming standardised and developing a solid writing system, leading to their usability in education, a major challenge remains regarding the selection of the dialectal variety to be used for the development of the writing system – and consequently, for use in education and in the production of literature. This issue is tied essentially to the dialectal variation inherent to most living languages. This paper will examine the case of Ghɔmálá’, a Grassfields-Bantu language from the West region of Cameroon, Africa, building its discussion on document analyses, field notes, and data collected on the current teaching of Ghɔmálá’ within the local speech community in the West of Cameroon. Cameroon is officially a French-English bilingual country, but actually highly multilingual with 286 local languages, all at various levels of standardisation. Ghɔmálá’ is considered to be one of those languages that are thriving, in comparison to the majority of the Cameroonian languages, and in terms of its print-richness and use in formal education – schools and literacy classes. The language is spoken in more than a dozen different chiefdoms and villages which are historically distinct and separate socio-political entities, each of them having their dialectal variety which has developed over the centuries with specific structural features and sociolinguistic dynamics (Nissim, 1972, 1975, 1981; Kayum Fokoue, 2011). This paper sits in a theoretical framework of corpus planning and status planning within language planning (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997; Liddicoat and Baldauf, 2008), with a focus on reference dialect theory and standard language development in terms of three core areas: development of a writing system, production of literature, and teaching in educational contexts (Sadembouo and Watters, 1987; Sadembouo, 1989; Bergman, 1989; Watters, 1990). Some key issues examined centre around dialectal variation and the challenges in selecting and raising one Ghɔmálá’ variety to a standard and then using it in literature production and the writing of didactic materials for the teaching of the Ghɔmálá’ language. There is also an analysis of the sociocultural and economic implications that arise from those inter-connected challenges in the development of the language, not just in terms of the relations between the dialects, but the very sustainability of the whole enterprise of Ghɔmálá’ teaching in formal contexts. In this vein, the importance of this chapter lies in its investigation of the process of selection of the dialectal variety that has been promoted to become the standard, and in its revisiting of the implication of this selection of one dialect out of more than a dozen equally valid varieties on the development of the writing system for Ghɔmálá’, the production of literature and the pedagogic issues related to this dialectal variation and selection.
Variation linguistique et enseignement des langues; Le cas des langues moins enseignées, 2020
More than half a century after the African Independences, many minority African languages are still struggling with their exclusion from the education system of their speakers and their ensuing marginalisation as mediums of instruction in the schools and the literacy classes. Even for those languages that are managing to get some standardisation and develop a solid writing system leading to their usability in education, a major challenge remains regarding the selection of the dialectal variety to be used for the development of the writing system and consequently, for use in education and in the production of literature. This issue is tied essentially to the dialectal variation inherent to most living languages. This paper will examine the case of Ghɔmálá’, a Grassfields-Bantu language from the West region of Cameroon, Africa; building its discussion on document analyses, field notes, and data collected on the current teaching of Ghɔmálá’ within the local speech community in the West of Cameroon. Cameroon is an officially French-English bilingual country, but actually highly multilingual with 286 local languages, all at various levels of their standardisation. Ghɔmálá’ is considered to be one of those languages that are thriving, in comparison to the majority of the Cameroonian languages, and in terms of its print-richness and use in formal education – schools and literacy classes. The language is spoken in more than a dozen different chiefdoms and villages which are historically distinct and full separate socio-political entities, each of them having their dialectal variety which has developed over the centuries with specific structural features and sociolinguistic dynamics (Nissim, 1972, 1975, 1981; Kayum Fokoue, 2011). This paper sits in a theoretical framework of corpus planning and status planning within language planning (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997; Liddicoat and Baldauf, 2008), with a focus on reference dialect theory and standard language development in terms of three core areas: development of a writing system, production of literature, and teaching in educational contexts (Sadembouo and Watters, 1987; Sadembouo, 1989; Bergman, 1989; Watters, 1990). Some key issues examined centre around dialectal variation and the challenges in selecting and raising one Ghɔmálá’ variety to a standard and then using it in literature production and the writing of didactic materials for the teaching of the Ghɔmálá’ language. There is also an analysis of the sociocultural and economic implications that arise from those inter-connected challenges in the development of the language, not just in terms of the relations between the dialects, but the very sustainability of the whole enterprise of Ghɔmálá’ teaching in formal contexts. In this vein, the importance of this chapter lies in its investigation of the process of selection of the dialectal variety that has been promoted to become the standard, and in its revisiting of the implication of this selection of one dialect out of more than a dozen equally valid varieties on the development of the writing system for Ghɔmálá’, the production of literature in and the pedagogic issues related to this dialectal variation and selection.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2014
may have useful instrumental effects for some, but it diverts attention away from the needs of the indigenous peoples and assumes that an expansion of English is in the interests of all. This book brings together the voices of linguists, literary figures, and teaching professionals in a wide-ranging exposition of the monstrous Hydra in action on four continents. It provides a showcase of the diverse and powerful impacts that English has had on so many non-English language cultures. This book should be heeded by policy makers in the countries it covers, as well as being read by all those involved in English language teaching circles. All in all, the book is critical and stresses the injustices of imperial dominance, postcolonial privilege, and the marginalization of what are seen as lesser languages, while the extensive former literature on English and English teaching worldwide tends to be triumphalist, celebrating the global success of English and to be monopolized by western researchers.
Journal of Language Contact, 2011
Let us make it clear from the very beginning: this book is not-nor it claims to be-a handbook on language naming in Africa; certain areas and languages receive much a bigger coverage than others, and the articles themselves are very diff erent in scope and sheer number of pages. Cameroon alone takes the lion's share, with no less than fi ve articles. East Africa gets a single overview (by Xavier Barillot, p. 271-295), and Southern Africa nothing. Th ere are 13 articles in this book, preceded by a meaty introduction by the editor. Despite the bilingualism in the title, only two articles (Mufwene's on Kituba and Gottschligg's on Fula) are in English, all the others in French. A general criticism-actually the only one I have, and more a disappointment than a criticism-concerns the maps which accompany quite a few of the articles. Th e maps, in grey tones, are sometimes poorly printed, often too small, and in any case insuffi cient to grasp the complexity of the facts: we are talking about a book on the names of "peoples" and "languages" (note the scare quotes)-and many, many of them-after all! I am sure that many readers would be ready to pay a higher price (sold at 30 Euros, the book is not expensive) for having page full maps, maybe (a dream?) even glossy color ones. Th e map nerd who writes this review certainly would. Carole de Féral's Introduction (p. 9-17) sets the scene for what is to come, from the plurality of denominations for one and the same linguistic object, to the use of exonims against autonyms, to, crucially, the diff erent uses of the very word "language:" 'le signifi é de « langue » ne peut être le même pour les linguistes et les acteurs non linguistes d'une communauté donnée : les premiers recherchent des régularités qui permettent de poser un « système ». Pour les seconds, c'est la stigmatisation d'un groupe et de quelques-uns de ses usages qui va entraîner le sentiment de l'existence d'une « langue » autre' (p. 12). 1 Th e articles in the book are divided in three sections: "Ethnies et langues : des objets controversés"; "Langues européennes et africaines en contact"; "Perspectives historiques et état des lieux". Th e four articles which make up the fi rst section of the volume are united by their focus on the discovery and naming of linguistic and ethnic entities, and three of them concern Cameroon. Th e fi rst article is the most general and theoretical in scope: Th omas K. Schippers's 'Le fait ethnique, histoires d'une notion controversée' (p. 19-37) takes the reader through a fascinating journey through the concept of nation (from the Middle Ages) and ethnicity (from its 18th century "invention" in Göttingen) to their uses and misuses in modern times, and to the contemporary eff orts at "deconstructing ethnicity" (just while the "ethnic phenomenon" plays a more important role than ever in today's world). 1 Th e meaning of "language" cannot be the same for the linguists and the non-linguist members of any given community: the former look for regularities which will enable the construction of a "system." For the latter, it is the stigma attached to a group and some of its uses which gives rise to the sentiment of "diff erent" language' (translation mine).
The Language of Greetings and Power Dynamics among the Babanki and Fulɓe of North-West Cameroon
2020
The Babanki and Fulɓe of North-West Cameroon live together and interact with each other on a regular basis necessitating an incessant exchange of greetings. However, the two communities have distinct ways of greeting which come into contact when individuals from both groups meet. This study seeks to determine the manner in which the two cultures interact during greetings, paying attention to the influence exerted by the participants from each community. Data collected through observation of real life greeting situations in Badem, Babanki Tungo provide evidence that the larger, more powerful host community (Babanki) members tend to be controlled more in a greeting context than the minority pastoral Fulɓe group members who moved only recently into the Babanki community. This leads us to reconsider the traditional understanding that a host group is more likely to dominate and influence new comers in situations of contact both in terms of language and culture. This study provides a new perspective to contact linguistics which has tended to focus on contact induced change on grammatical systems (Siemund and Kintana 2008) while neglecting socio-cultural changes that might result from language contact. Although this is a classic situation of a study of language in contact, a critical discourse analysis of interactions will give greater insights into language and power relations during such cross ethnic linguistic interactions.
Language and Identity among marginal people in East Africa
2017
Language is one of the strongest expressions of group identity. Many communities in East Africa are multilingual and for some of the smaller communities this leads to language loss and for others to language revival. The article shows how different groups in similar circumstances opt for different linguistic behaviour and how these choices can swiftly change in the light of external circumstances including economic need. The article examines the linguistic attitude of groups such as the Yaaku, Aasa, Akiek, Ma’a/Mbugu from East Africa and compares them among each other and with other former hunter-gatherers such as the Bakola/Bagyele pygmies in Cameroon and the agricultural Mbugwe from Tanzania who are equally small in numbers.