Practice in Search of a Paradigm: Language Rights, Linguistic Citizenship and Minority Language Communities in Senegal

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 25 November 2014, At: 01:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in Language PlanningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

Practice in Search of a Paradigm:Language Rights, LinguisticCitizenship and Minority LanguageCommunities in SenegalDr Barbara Trudell aa SIL International , Nairobi, KenyaPublished online: 19 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Dr Barbara Trudell (2008) Practice in Search of a Paradigm: LanguageRights, Linguistic Citizenship and Minority Language Communities in Senegal, Current Issues inLanguage Planning, 9:4, 395-412

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664200802354401

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664200802354401

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Practice in Search of a Paradigm:Language Rights, Linguistic Citizenshipand Minority Language Communitiesin Senegal

Barbara TrudellSIL International, Nairobi, Kenya

Appropriate models for understanding the dynamics of language use in society areessential to effective language policy and planning. Particularly in African contexts,such models must speak to the unique features of multilingual environments, andthey must account for the differences in prestige and value which occur betweenlanguages in these contexts. Two paradigms of language and identity that are underdiscussion in Africa today are the language rights and linguistic citizenship para-digms. These two paradigms describe the social and political aspects of minoritylanguage use in very different ways. This paper examines various aspects of thesetwo models, using data gathered on six local language communities in Senegal,West Africa. It explores the applicability of the two models to the realities of thesecommunities and their national context, and offers observations regarding theutility of the two for framing the language development task in sub-Saharan Africa.

doi: 10.1080/14664200802354401

Keywords: language rights, linguistic citizenship, minority language development,Senegal

IntroductionTwo particular paradigms of language and identity that are under discussion

in Africa today are the language rights (LR) paradigm and the linguistic citizen-ship (LC) paradigm. Although not entirely mutually antagonistic, the two para-digms describe the social and political aspects of minority language use in verydifferent ways.

Ultimately the value of a paradigm rests on its accuracy in explaining reali-ties on the ground. As May (2005: 338) and Blommaert (2005) note, an examin-ation of what people actually do with language is crucial to the evaluation ofsuch paradigms of language and identity.

The goal of this paper is decidedly empirical, attempting to describe andunderstand the language-related behaviours and motivations of people in min-ority language communities. The language-related activities and perspectives ofseveral communities of Senegal, West Africa are used to assess the applicabilityof the LR and LC paradigms to minority language development in rural sub-Saharan Africa. The language choices and language attitudes of communitymembers, as observed in research carried out in early 2007, shed a fair amountof light on the relevance and explanatory power of these two paradigms.

1466-4208/08/04 395-18 $20.00/0 # 2008 Taylor & FrancisCURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING Vol. 9, No. 4, 2008

395

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Senegalese language communities in focus for this research were theMancagne, Jola-Fogny, Jola-Kwatay, Noon and Saafi.1 In addition, a significantbody of descriptive literature on the Pulaar language community allowsinclusion of that community in this comparison of the two paradigms oflanguage and identity. These six language communities vary considerably innumbers of speakers (from around 5000 Jola-Kwatay speakers to over twomillion Pulaar speakers), their geographical locations, and in their culturaland linguistic character.2

Several common factors make these six Senegalese communities appropriatefor comparative study:

. The Senegalese national government is increasingly active in pursuingquestions of language and education as well as the standardisation andofficial recognition of Senegalese languages. This is highly relevant, sinceone of the major themes in both LR and LC is the role of the state inlanguage development. All but one of the languages under study(Kwatay) have been officially recognised by the national government.

. A large African language – Wolof – as well as the French language, framethe language policy landscape, and response to both of those languagescan be seen in community language decisions as examined here. Issuesof language and identity come heavily into play in this context, issuesthat are of importance in both the LR and LC paradigms.

. In the six language communities studied, significant numbers of speakersare fluent in neither French nor Wolof. This fact has relevance to the issueof multilingualism as framed in the two paradigms.

. Thriving literacy programmes in the local language exist in at least five ofthe six communities; the sixth, Pulaar, also has a history of local-languageliteracy programme initiatives. In two of the communities, the locallanguage is being used in formal education contexts as well. So the devel-opment of these languages has progressed far beyond many of the as-yetunwritten languages of Senegal and of Africa, providing contexts for theemergence of issues relevant to both LR and LC.

. Local institutions exist in each of the six communities for the promotion oftheir culture and language. One effect of these associations has been toincrease the instrumental use of the local language, in educational andother contexts, which is highly relevant for the LR and LC paradigms.

The data used in this study were gathered over the span of several weeks inearly 2007, by means of direct observation, open-ended interview and analysisof both published and unpublished documents relevant to the communitiesand the language situation in Senegal generally. (See Tables A1 and A2 inAppendix for details on sites, persons interviewed and events observed).

The Language Rights ParadigmThe LR paradigm includes the language ecology (Nettle & Romaine, 2000)

and linguistic human rights (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, 2006) approaches tominority language. This paradigm is often associated with the Maori experi-ence in New Zealand (Durie, 1999), the indigenous peoples of the Americas

396 Current Issues in Language Planning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Hornberger & King, 1999; Stairs, 1988) and minority languages in Europe suchas Basque, Saami and Welsh (Fishman, 2001b; May, 1999b); not surprisingly, theparadigm also has links with the language endangerment movement.

Spolsky (2004: 119) notes that the notion of linguistic rights became popularin the early 1980s; that of linguistic human rights appeared around a decadelater. The United Nations statements on these issues have centred on therights of indigenous children, migrant workers and on human rights ingeneral. In Africa, the Asmara Declaration on African Languages andLiteratures (2000) is expressed in the terminology of linguistic rights. The devel-opment of the discourse of LR in sub-Saharan Africa is outlined by Makoni andTrudell (2006: 22), who note both criticism and support for the paradigm.

The tenets of the LR paradigm that are most relevant to this study include thefollowing:

. Majority languages, and their speakers, hold a hegemonic political pos-ition relative to language change and language choice. The requirementthat a state espouse one language and culture – invariably the mostprestigious and powerful language and culture – is a common rationalefor the denial of rights to other, minority cultures (May, 1999a: 43; Mazrui,2004: 78).

. Language loss has a great deal to do with issues of power and prejudice(May, 2004: 37). It is no coincidence that the world’s vanishing languagesare spoken by the politically less powerful cultures.

. Minority languages need institutional protection and support if they are tosurvive (May, 2006: 265). The state is the appropriate agency to providesuch institutional support, particularly with policy intervention (Grin,2005: 449), since it provides the central framework for reproducing agiven ‘regime of language’ (Blommaert, 2005: 397).

. Language is a key marker of identity. While recognising that language is acontingent factor in a people’s identity, not a determining one, current LRtheorists nevertheless argue that the link between language and identitycarries significant cultural and political dimensions (May, 2005). For thatreason, language loss implies loss of ethnocultural identity as well(Fishman, 2001a: 3).

. There is a heavy reliance on moral argument. Notions of human rights,fairness, oppression and justice infuse much of the LR argument (Grin,2005: 451). In fact, Spolsky (2004: 115) maintains that the principal argu-ment for the LR of minority peoples was fairness, founded in the beliefin the civil rights of all individuals within a society. The argument for lin-guistic diversity was a later addition to this paradigm.

. Related to the above, a liberal notion of rights focuses on ‘an individual’sright to retain their ethnic, cultural and language affiliations’ (May, 1999a:46). The cultural community is the context in which an individual’s rightsare situated, and which the individual has a right to maintain.

The Linguistic Citizenship ParadigmThe LC paradigm has arisen largely in reaction to the perceived inadequacy

of the LR paradigm to solve the problems it is meant to address (Stroud &

Practice in Search of a Paradigm 397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Heugh, 2004: 191). The LC paradigm is proposed as a more accurate way toexplain the language and identity issues of minority language communities.

Probably the most carefully elaborated descriptions of the LC paradigm arethose of Stroud (Stroud, 2001; Stroud & Heugh, 2004). For Stroud, the shortcom-ings of the LR approach have been made clearly visible in the attempts of thepost-apartheid South African government to apply a linguistic human rightsmodel in fashioning a new national language policy (Stroud & Heugh, 2004:210). The LC paradigm proposes some significantly different principles regard-ing languages and identity:

. Language is a set of social practices – constructed, contingent and con-tested (Stroud, 2001: 348; Stroud & Heugh, 2004: 197). Language maythus be one marker of identity, but it is not necessarily the most importantone. This is particularly true in multilingual environments, where identi-ties can be multiple and complex.

. Language should be seen as a resource that people use as needed(Blommaert, 2005). Local uses of language are fluid and nuanced, andcannot be captured by standardisation (which is an integral step in theLR paradigm); these local uses of language should be recognised andrespected.

. Rather than the state being the organism to determine language use andrights, minority groups themselves ‘need to seize power over the dis-courses and representations of language that define them’ (Stroud, 2001:249). This view is consistent with a post-liberal view of citizenship, charac-terised by ‘grassroots struggle and agency’ (Stroud, 2001). Language isthus seen as part of a broader social and political agenda for change,sited primarily in local agency.

. Hence, in the LC paradigm problems of inequality among social groupsare not primarily about the relationships between languages (Ferguson,2006: 130). As Blommaert (2005: 411) puts it, the issue is primarily aboutvoice rather than language.

The Paradigms and the DataThe data gathered among minority language communities in Senegal may be

fruitfully examined through the lenses of these two paradigms – and in turn,the paradigms themselves may be productively examined, based on ‘the waypeople use language’ in these Senegalese settings. Four facets of the languageand identity question will be in focus here: (1) the wider political and socialenvironment within which language development is taking place and languagedecisions are being made; (2) the functions of language, whether instrumentalor identity-related, or both; (3) processes of language standardisation currentlytaking place in local and national contexts and (4) the nature of the institutionalsites for language development, both national and local.

The political and social context for language development in Senegal

The context in which minority language communities operate in Senegalhas a significant impact on the shape of language development in thosecommunities.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Minority languages are being recognised by the national governmentthrough a process called codification, in which the Ministry of Education offi-cially attests that an unwritten language has been developed into a writtenlanguage. Up to 17 Senegalese languages have been recognised in this way.The process requires extensive linguistic research as well as community mobil-isation. Such official recognition has significant impact on a community’sself-identity. An official with the Catholic Education Service for the Dioceseof Thies told the author that ‘codification dynamises the language; we couldsee a stabilising of cultures, and a valuing of people for their ethnic identity’.

The implicit identification of the people with their ethnic language is signifi-cant in this remark, as recognition of the language is linked with a strengthenedsense of cultural identity and values.

The literacy programme manager for the Noon language community alsomade the following observation to the author, on the impact of codification onthat community:

Several factions of Noon wanted to come together, and their language wasconsidered a major aspect they had in common. Following codificationpride in the language has increased – this has all served to unite thedifferent Noon communities.

Having said this, it is also the case that multilingualism is common amongthe communities studied. As the language of government and formal edu-cation, French is clearly the prestige language in Senegal as a nation(Hutchinson, 2006: 25). The data suggest that lack of French fluency has agenerally negative effect on children’s school performance in the ruralcommunities studied. The data also suggest that, at least in the Jola-Fogny,Saafi and Noon communities, the children’s mother tongue is being used in away that might be termed ‘para-scholastic’. It is acknowledged by teachers,school authorities and parents in these communities that mother-tongueliteracy classes would improve children’s performance in French-languageschool at both primary and secondary levels (a phenomenon also widely recog-nised in the literature, e.g. Dutcher, 2004; UNESCO, 2003). However, eventhough they have the tacit approval of education officials, classes in locallanguages are not allowed to form part of the official curriculum. They maybe held in school classrooms, but not during school hours. French still holdssway as the language of formal education. An exception to this reluctanceto legitimise local language use in school can be found in the Jola-Kwataycommunity, where the local primary school is currently the site of a set ofexperimental Kwatay-medium classes; however there are only 5000 or soKwatay speakers, and so their deviation from the French-language educationalnorm may be seen as relatively non-threatening to the hegemony of French inthat domain.

Wolof, an indigenous language of Senegal, is probably the most prominentand widely spoken language of wider communication in the country althoughits official use is much more limited than that of French. The Wolof people arefound in large numbers around Dakar, but the language is used as a means ofwider communication even as far away as the Casamance (at the southern endof the country). LePage (1997: 58) observes that:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

there is a new class of prosperous merchants who promote Wolof as theirworking language. Exogamous weddings, frequent in the towns, andlabour migration to the towns, are important factors in promotingWolof as a general lingua franca.

LePage argues that Wolof ‘unites people in their African culture’ in Senegal.However the data in this study indicate just the reverse, that in fact oppositionto what some indignantly call ‘Wolofisation’ serves to fuel the efforts of locallanguage associations to attain official recognition of their own languages.Fagerberg-Diallo (2001: 160) notes the strong reaction of the Pulaar people tothe spread of Wolof into the north of the country and, importantly, to its pro-motion as an official language:

As long as Wolof remained a spoken lingua franca which was chosen forpractical purposes by the speakers themselves, using it never posed aproblem. But in recent years there have been organised attempts topromote it as the official national language, in place of or equal to French.Pulaar speakers, however, have always been the first group to protest anyattempts to minimise the use of other Senegalese languages. This prospectof a ‘threat’ has given the ethos of a ‘cause’ to Pulaar literacy, in whichbecoming literate is a way of asserting cultural identity on a national scale.

Once again, the link between language and identity is clear. And interestingly,although similar opposition to Wolof was noted in at least three of the otherlanguage communities studied (the Mancagne, Noon and Jola-Fogny), no par-allel reaction to French was noted anywhere. African languages are evidentlyseen as more of a threat to group identity than is French, perhaps because ofthe very real possibility of cultural assimilation; few rural communities inSenegal are in this sort of danger from French. (Indeed, it is the lack offluency in French which is motivating much of both literacy class attendanceand interest in local-language use in schools – see below).

The data also reveal some interesting ways in which language is used as amarker of socio-cultural belonging in these minority language communities.It was found that women who marry into language communities other thantheir own are able to gain acceptance into those communities by showing soli-darity with the local women’s group – including participating in the local-language literacy class of the women’s group. For example, instances havebeen observed in which Wolof women who have married into Noon commu-nities are expected to become part of the community and participate in commu-nity events. By participating in the Noon literacy classes, the Wolof womendemonstrate their willingness to make the effort to learn the language and tocommit themselves to the activities of the women’s group. By the end of theclass, regardless of the level of literacy acquired, the former ‘outsider’ gainsinsider status by being considered ‘part of the women’s group’ and thus partof the language community.

Another example of local language use as a cultural marker was found in theJola-Kwatay community, where a teacher in the mother-tongue classesremarked that ‘the ancestors like this programme’. This comment is a reflectionon the value and status that the literacy programme gives to the local language,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

hence the local culture, and so to the ancestors who are very much a part of thelocal culture. For this teacher, the fact that the programme is successful indi-cates some level of blessing by the ancestors. One Mancagne teacher quoteda similar comment by an elderly woman in his class:

When I die, and that may be soon, I eagerly await the opportunity to tellthe ancestors on the other side that on this side we are learning to read ourown language. They will certainly rejoice.

What do these observations indicate regarding the applicability of the LR andLC paradigms here? First, it seems clear that state recognition and ‘protection’of the minority languages mean a great deal to the language communitymembers of Senegal. The importance that the LR paradigm places on stateintervention in legitimising such languages is thus borne out in this data. Thefurther action by the Senegalese state to promote experimental bilingual edu-cation programmes in some areas is also being welcomed by the languageassociations in these communities as further legitimisation of the languageand the culture. The state’s position on the official status of Wolof is alsobeing watched closely (and jealously, one might add) by the non-Wolof popu-lation. These communities appear to be very concerned about the danger thatWolof language promotion could pose to their own languages and cultures.

Second, there is strong evidence that language and self-identity are closelylinked in these communities, even where bilingualism or multilingualismexist. Repeated references were made in the study to the implications oflanguage development for the people’s own social, cultural and politicalwelfare. The LC argument that language is only one marker of identity couldwell be true, but it is clear that for these communities it is the most visibleand valued marker.

However, the community-oriented perception of language and languagedevelopment is also striking in this study. Language belongs to the community,and is a marker of community membership. Indeed, bilingualism or multilin-gualism seem to enhance identification of the ‘home language’ with behavioursin their home culture and community. Thus the LC emphasis on local identityformation and agency seems to fit the data better than does an orientationtowards individual rights.

Language Functions: Instrumentality Vs. Identity?

The above discussion of language domains leads to the issue of the assign-ment of functions to languages in the communities studied. The ‘language-as-resource’ argument of the LC model speaks to the instrumentality oflanguage, described by Stroud and Heugh (2004: 211) as ‘the potential forand flexibility of alternative linguistic resources owned in sub-cultures’, anddescribed more succinctly by Ricento (2005: 357) as ‘language as commodity’.The contrasting view that has been ascribed to the LR model is that of ‘languageas identity marker’ (ibid.), in which the functions of the community languageare limited to its link to cultural identity or sentimental use, and otherlanguages are assigned instrumental functions (Stroud, 2003: 22). (This viewis contested by May (2005: 327).)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

However the data in this study seem to demonstrate that an identity–instrumentality dichotomy is not adequate to describe the situation inSenegal. Certainly the communities under study here see their languages assignificant markers of cultural identity, as discussed in the section above.What Canagarajah (2005: 439) describes as the resilience of a minority commu-nity’s attachment to its language, despite its limited value in pragmatic andmaterial terms, is certainly visible in these communities. French on the otherhand is viewed with little sentimental attachment by these communities; it isconsidered as a means to success in formal education and access to white-collar jobs (LePage, 1997: 57; Carrington, 1997: 87). Wolof, viewed with evenless sentimental appreciation within these language communities, is seen asnecessary for certain inter-group interactions.

However there is more to the issue than this. For example, in some casesantagonism to Wolof appears to be driving community members to contestits instrumental use by promoting the development of their own languagesfor uses beyond simply marking identity. The reasoning appears to be: ‘IfWolof can be used in my community for a variety of uses, then so can myown language’. Saafi-language literacy classes in the Saafi-speaking area areclaimed to be at least as successful in making people literate as Wolof-languageliteracy classes are. And of course the use of community languages to enhancesuccess in formal education (currently taking place in Jola-Kwatay and Saafi,and under community discussion in Mancagne, Jola-Fogny and Noon commu-nities) confers on those languages the ultimate in instrumental value.

So it appears that language development is seen by the communities understudy as a way to expand the instrumental use of minority languages, notmerely to entrench their position as identity markers. This intention reflectswhat May describes as the desire of minority communities not to return topast cultural practices, but to continue to develop their culture and languagein the same way that members of majority cultures do (May, 2005: 332).

An additional challenge to the dichotomising of identity and instrumentalityis provided by Risager (2006: 74), in a discussion of the symbolic value oflanguage choice and its significance for the ongoing constitution of identity.Along with LePage and Tabouret-Keller (1985: 14) who believe that linguisticpractice is seen as ‘a series of acts of identity in which people reveal boththeir personal identity and their search for social roles’, Risager furtherargues that people operate in various linguistic contexts by:

. . .‘projecting’ their inner understanding of the outside world, via theiruse of language, onto the social world, including their expectations con-cerning what role their linguistic practice – and that of other people –plays in social interaction. This projection is an invitation to otherpeople to share their special model of the world, and it is a hope of an indi-cation of solidarity on the part of those who wish to identify themselveswith it (p. 75).

This perspective resonates with Anderson’s argument that an important aspectof language is ‘its capacity for generating imagined communities, building ineffect particular solidarities’ (Anderson (1991: 133), quoted in May (2005: 331);emphasis in the original).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Risager’s model suggests that the use of multiple languages can itself be anexpression of individual and community identity, not a matter of a series oflinguistic commodities. A thorough discussion of whether that is the case inSenegalese minority language communities is beyond the scope of this study,but it seems at least plausible.

Language Standardisation and the Politics of Recognition

Development of the written language is one of the acknowledged tasks ofthe local language associations in Senegal. Establishment of an orthography,production of written materials and the establishment of literacy classes inthe local language are key activities for these associations, intended to leadto the recognition and use of a common written form of the language amongthe population. These activities all assume a certain degree of standardisationof the language, resulting in common spellings and the use of particular con-ventions in the written form of the language. It is also expected that theseactivities will serve to extend use of the language. Hutchinson (2006) describesthe extensive literature production activities of the Pulaar language associ-ation, Associates in Research and Education for Development (ARED) inSenegal, and their impact on expanding use of the language into educationalcontexts. Easton (2006: 21) credits literacy programmes in African languageswith “transcribing, officialising and developing African languages thatmight otherwise have remained ‘mute’”. For minority language communitiesin Senegal, standardisation of the language is also a key step in attaining thegovernment recognition that comes with ‘codified’ status, since one of thematerial outputs of the codification process is a standardised orthography forthe language.

This perspective on the role of language standardisation in legitimisation of aminority language parallels that expressed in the LR paradigm. However, in theLC paradigm the need for standardising community languages is contested; therigidity of linguistic rules is contrasted with the fluidity and flexibility of actuallanguage use at the local community level. In addition, the LC paradigm bringsup the political implications of language standardisation, arguing that whatmay appear to be merely the application of linguistic technique in determiningthe boundaries of a language variety is actually ‘infused with political signifi-cance’ (Stroud & Heugh, 2004: 209) as judgment is passed on the legitimacyof local language varieties.

The standardisation efforts of the language associations are focused only onwritten language, with particular care taken to distinguish between the stan-dardised written form and the locally spoken form. Rudy Klaas, a consultantwith extensive experience in these literacy programmes, describes the inten-tionality with which this issue is handled:

The standardised written form of the local language is presented inliteracy classes, where the students learn the standardised sound/symbol relationships. These might not correspond exactly to their ownspoken form of the language, but they are told that this is the standardisedform and so they should learn to recognise it, even though they might notpronounce it that way themselves. It is here that the difference between


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

the standardised form and that of their own dialect is discussed. Thestudents become aware that their dialect is not the standard form.However teachers are trained not to correct the use of another spokenform when students pronounce the standard written letters, and aretold that both spoken forms are acceptable. The goal is not to imposeone dialect on the others.3

Such efforts to standardise the written form but protect the variety of oralforms of a language can be observed in major languages across the world.Thus, the argument that standardisation of the written form inhibits the flexi-bility of oral forms is hard to sustain based on this data.

However the question of political recognition is certainly a relevant one forthe language communities under study here. The distinction between ‘codified’language and unrecognised dialect is a political as well as a linguistic one;representation in both the government Academie des Langues Nationales(Academy of National Languages) and the civil society organisation UnionNationale des Associations de Langues is officially limited to ‘codified’ languages.Political recognition of the associated culture is also part of the desired scenario;one Mancagne literacy teacher noted that:

[t]he literacy classes help to preserve the culture, which means that wePkumel [the Mancagne language and cultural association] members andteachers can participate in ‘big meetings’ at the (city of Ziguinchor)mayoral level whenever cultural events are being planned.

This recognition of the Mancagne culture as being important enough for itsrepresentatives to sit at the planning table in the mayor’s office is seen as adirect outcome of the literacy and language development programme spon-sored by the Mancagne language association.

One aspect of standardisation that is not universally appreciated in thesecommunities is the authority of government-endorsed experts on orthographyconventions for the language. Most of the language associations of the commu-nities under study were engaged in production of literature and literacy classeswell before their language variety was submitted to the codification process; theorthographies in use had already been developed, tested and established, andwere generally developed with pedagogical considerations foremost. However,the experts upon whom the government relies in these decisions are not alwaysspeakers of the language, nor have they necessarily participated in the linguis-tic studies that led to the language associations’ orthographic choices. Thusorthographic conventions which have prevailed under the national govern-ment process have in some cases been counter-intuitive for native speakersof the language, and have also run counter to what has already been in useby the language associations and in the literacy materials.

The official process of orthography development also points to anotherconcern raised by the LC proponents: that standardisation generally ignoresthe way speakers themselves perceive their own language, since standardis-ation decisions are not usually made by the minority language communitymembers themselves. However, on the whole community members appearto consider this a small price to pay for the significant benefit of national


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

recognition. The data indicate that the disparity between ‘macro LR and microlanguage practices’ (May, 2005: 320) is not seen as worth worrying about,given what the community stands to gain.

A further issue to consider here is the future of codification in Senegal. In 1993,the national government had recognised six Senegalese languages, with allother language varieties in the country considered to be dialects of one of theofficially recognised six. By 2007 at least 16 languages had been recognised,and 12 of those are considered national languages. With up to 36 languagesdocumented in the country (Gordon, 2005), at what point does the codificationstop? At what point might the process become solely a mechanism for politicalrecognition, rather than a step in legitimising the language practices of a min-ority language community? Again, answering these questions is beyond thescope of this study; but certainly the disparity between claimed use andactual use has long been a recognised feature of language-based politics.

Institutional Activism

One very important piece of the language development picture for thecommunities under study is that nearly all of them have a local language devel-opment association or committee. In all cases but one (the Jola-Kwatay), theselanguage associations spearhead the language development and literacy effortsin the community.4 They are as follows:

. The Mancagne cultural association, Pkumel, has its headquarters inZiguinchor. The name Pkumel comes from the Mancagne word for thecentral supporting roof beam in a traditional Mancagne house. Pkumelserves as the point of convergence for both language development andhas a strong impetus for ‘revaluing the culture’, as the sign in front ofthe Pkumel office states.

. The Jola-Fogny development association, Kutuuka, has its headquarters inan area north of Ziguinchor in the Casamance. The name Kutuuka comesfrom the Fogny word meaning ‘let’s create together’. Along with theJola-Fogny literacy programme, Kutuuka is involved in local developmentprojects.

. The Noon literacy group, ENDA Graim, is situated in the office of a sub-group of the Belgian NGO Environmental Development Action ThirdWorld (ENDA) in the city of Thies. The term ‘Graim’ stands for Groupede Recherches d’Appui aux Initiatives Mutualistes. As the office serves otherfunctions for ENDA as well, it is not a Noon location per se; neverthelessit is well known to the community as ‘the Noon literacy programmeoffice’. Along with the literacy classes, ENDA Graim runs a local healthinsurance cooperative.

. The Saafi language association (the Association for the Development of theSaafi Language, ADLAS) is located in the town of Sebikotane. The literacyoffice of ADLAS is called Kiyaa-ki; this means ‘basket of treasure’ in theSaafi language, and refers to keeping things of value that one does notwant to lose. The Kiyaa-ki office began as a literacy centre, and has sincebecome a central point for the Saafi community’s cultural activities.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

. In the Pulaar community, the ARED is a group of Pulaar authors and linguistswhich is dedicated to publishing and training in the Pulaar language as wellas promoting Pulaar cultural identity (Hutchinson, 2006: 27).

The active presence of language associations ensures that the language devel-opment environment in these communities is locally shaped. National govern-ment policy and actions are certainly relevant, but these non-state actors, thelanguage associations, are the ones that actually define, drive and resourcelanguage development work in the communities.5

Such local agency is very much recognised and endorsed in the LC para-digm; indeed, in this paradigm local agency is the key to minority languagedevelopment. The LR paradigm, on the other hand, with its emphasis onstate action, has less focus on the importance of independent local action.

This leads to the following question: what is the appropriate role – or rangeof roles – of the state in this context? If LR requires a strong and sympatheticstate actor, then its applicability is limited – at least in sub-Saharan Africa.Although some states have been very proactive in their desire to protect min-ority language communities, most have not. Indeed, the best-case scenario inmany African nations is a permissive, nominally supportive environmentwhere minority language use is concerned. In such an environment, localactors in language development seem able to flourish if they are adequatelyresourced. Indeed, it might even be seen as an ideal situation, in which localdecisions regarding language use for learning and communication can bemade and supported without what might be regarded as ‘interference’ fromforces outside the community.

However there is also the fact that even the most thriving local languagedevelopment requires a certain degree of state enablement.6 For example,Stroud (2003: 29) refers to the fact that ‘the use of local language [in schoolenvironments] provides opportunities for many marginal individuals to (re)ne-gotiate oppressive traditional social realities’. This is certainly the case, yet thesustained programmes of local language use in schools need at least the per-mission of the state. Examining the establishment of mother-tongue educationin northwest Cameroon in the 1980s, Trudell indicates that even the more pol-itically daring private schools felt able to participate in the programme only if itwere called ‘experimental’ and so were condoned by the national government(Trudell, 2004: 107). So it would appear that successful language developmentrequires some kind of balance between state policy and local action.

In fact, it would appear from the data that the only major challenge to thiskind of situation is financial sustainability. None of the language associationsdescribed in this study operates solely on local funding. Five are financiallysupported by SIL International, with some help from other NGOs andCatholic Education Services. The sixth, the Pulaar initiative ARED, receivessignificant support from members of the Pulaar elite who live outside the com-munity and even outside Senegal (Easton, & Fagerberg-Diallo, 2001: 2).Dependence on such sources of funding, none of which has been shown tobe reliable in the long term, has a severe effect on the sustainability of theselocal agencies for language development (Trudell, 2006: 204). Not only so,but the data collected for this study indicate that national government


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

funding for local language development work is not necessarily any morereliable. Financial sustainability is thus a huge challenge to such associations.Ideally, they could be supported by local stakeholders; that possibility hasnot yet been put to the test in the communities under study here, but theenvironment does not look promising.

Concluding ThoughtsA few issues stand out from analysis of these two paradigms of language and

identity. Probably the most obvious is the power of context in shaping such aparadigm and in assessing its utility for a particular language community.The LR and LC paradigms are both heavily influenced by the particularsocial, political and linguistic contexts out of which they have grown. This isnot to deny the possibility that they may express some universals aboutlanguage and identity; nevertheless, to universalise either paradigm withoutqualification would be a mistake. Rather, it seems appropriate to consider thestrengths of each paradigm for the context under study.

The strengths of the LR paradigm in the Senegalese context include itsemphasis on the language–identity link and the substantial importance oflanguage to ethnic self-distinction. The contingency of language in forming cul-tural identity does not diminish its extreme relevance to that identity among theSenegalese communities studied. However, it also seems clear that language isthe visible marker of something more profound about identity that does notdisappear when language questions are no longer the issue. Linguistic rightsfor a minority language community are not easily distinguished from othercommunity rights, but neither are they the sum total of the rights-orientedaspirations of these communities.

Another strength of the LR approach in this context is its acknowledgementof the key role of the state in the recognition and development of minoritylanguages. In Senegal, the government has become a major player in thisarena only recently, with language communities and NGOs having historicallytaken the lead in language development and literacy activities. However, at thispoint in time it is nearly impossible to consider minority language developmentwithout taking into account the impact that government actions and policiesare making on that process. Not only so, but future engagement of the govern-ment will be crucial as minority language development expands into the formaleducation domain and non-formal education programmes are increasingly inneed of financial assistance.

The major strength of the LC paradigm in this context is its emphasis on localagency as the primary site in which the energy exists to promote andimplement language development. Local actors are extremely important tothe language development process in Senegal. As Francis and Reyhner (2002:19) observe in North America, dependence on government institutions andthe formal recognition of a people’s language heritage can serve only as anadjunct to an active community-based language revitalisation (or in theSenegalese case, language development) process.

However, as noted above, it is not likely that independent local action,without state support of any kind, is sustainable. As long as there is a robust


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

nation-state, successful language development requires both state policy andlocal action to ensure an environment in which minority language communitiescan use their language to their greatest benefit.

Finally, a few observations may be made regarding the issue of multilingual-ism and identity. The LC paradigm is perhaps more easily applicable in con-texts where minority language prestige and standing are not a significantissue for the community that speaks them, where language is not stronglylinked to cultural identity, and the use of multiple languages does not threatenindividual or community identity. However, where language use issues arefraught with potential political and social conflict, and where the perceptionexists that a hierarchy of languages is being imposed from outside the commu-nity, the LR paradigm of language protection seems to be a better fit.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Barbara Trudell, PO Box 44456,Nairobi 00100, Kenya ([email protected]).

Notes1. My sincere thanks go to Mr Rudy Klaas of SIL Senegal, whose collaboration in data

gathering and analysis was crucial to this paper.2. More details on these languages, including their geographical location, may be found

at http://www.ethnologue.com.3. Rudy Klaas, personal communication, 8 August 2007.4. Even among the Jola-Kwatay community, the local-language literacy efforts were the

initiative of a Kwatay-speaking Christian church denomination. Once this faltered,interested members of the Kwatay elite moved written use of the Kwatay languageinto the primary school. Again, the small size of the Kwatay language communityhas had implications for the level of institutional activism that has been possible;nevertheless, this is the only language community studied that has establishedKwatay-medium formal education through grade 4. Some level of activism hasbeen in play here.

5. Interestingly, LePage (1997: 58) makes the claim that ‘the Wolof, and those who assim-ilate to the Wolof, have confidence in their commercial and ethnic success, and do notneed (as other ethnic groups have needed) to form an ethnic group association toprotect their interests or to push for literacy’. This fascinating claim certainly bearsfurther study.

6. This assumes that the state is robust enough to exercise some degree of control overthe national education system. There are, however, cases in which local languagedevelopment initiatives have flourished in the context of a virtually non-functioningstate. This was the case in the 1990s among the Ngbaka people of north-westDemocratic Republic of the Congo, for example, where a local-language literacy pro-gramme flourished in the isolation of the upper Ubangi, an area in which most stateservices had ceased (Robinson & Gfeller, 1997). In the early 2000s a mother-tonguebased bilingual education programme was begun as well. The programmes werefinancially supported from outside the community, but were not dependent uponthe state. However, in recent years, opposition to the Ngbaka-medium primaryschools in the area has arisen from newly-placed state education officials, on thebasis of the fact that Ngbaka is not one of the officially recognised languages ofeducation.

ReferencesAnderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism (Rev. edn), London: Verso.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Asmara Declaration on African Languages and Literatures (2000) On WWW at http://www.queensu.ca.snid/asmara.htm. (Accessed 20 April 2004).

Blommaert, J. (2005) Situating language rights: English and Swahili in Tanzaniarevisited. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (3), 390–417.

Canagarajah, A.S. (2005) Dilemmas in planning English/vernacular relations in post-colonial communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (3), 418–447.

Carrington, L. (1997) Social contexts conducive to the vernacularization of literacy. InA. Tabouret-Keller, R. Le PageB., P. Gardner-Chloros and G. Varro (eds) VernacularLiteracy: A re-evaluation (pp. 82–92). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Durie, A. (1999) Emancipatory Maori education: Speaking from the heart. In S. May (ed.)Indigenous Community-Based Education (pp. 67–78). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

Dutcher, N. (2004) Expanding educational opportunity in linguistically diverse societies.Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Easton, P. (2006). Investing in literacy: Where, why and how. Working document for theAssociation for the Development of Education in Africa, Bienniale on Education inAfrica, Libreville, March 27–31, 2006. On WWW at http://www.adeanet.org/biennial-2006/doc/document/PL2_1þ_easton_wwhow_en.pdf. (Accessed 1 April2007).

Easton, P. and Fagerberg-Diallo, S. (2001) Senegal: Indigenous language and literature asa non-profit business. Washington DC: World Bank, IK Notes 38.

Fagerberg-Diallo, S. (2001) Constructive interdependence: The response of a Senegalesecommunity to the question of why become literate. In D.R. Olson and N. Torrance(eds) The Making of Literate Societies (pp. 153–177). Oxford: Blackwell.

Ferguson, G. (2006) Language Planning and Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.

Fishman, J. (ed.) (2001a) Why is it so hard to save a threatened language? Can ThreatenedLanguages be Saved? (pp. 1–22). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. (ed.) (2001b) Can Threatened Languages be Saved? Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Francis, N. and Reyhner, J. (2002) Language and Literacy Teaching for Indigenous Education:A Bilingual Approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gordon, R. (2005) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: SIL International.Grin, F. (2005) Linguistic human rights as a source of policy guidelines: A critical assess-

ment. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (3), 448–460.Hornberger, N. and King, K. (1999) Authenticity and unification in Quechua language

planning. In S. May (ed.) Indigenous Community-Based Education (pp. 160–180).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hutchinson, J.P. (2006) African language literature as a weapon against African languagemarginalization, In J. Mugane, J.P. Hutchison and D.A. Worman (eds) Selected pro-ceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African linguistics (pp. 22–33).Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

LePage, R.B. (1997) Political and economic aspects of vernacular literacy. In A. Tabouret-Keller, R.B. LePage, P. Gardner-Chloros and G. Varro (eds) Vernacular Literacy: ARe-Evaluation (pp. 23–81). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

LePage, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches toLanguage and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Makoni, S. and Trudell, B. (2006) Complementary and conflicting discourses of linguisticdiversity: Implications for language planning. Per Linguam 22 (2), 14–28.

May, S. (ed.) (1999a) Language and education rights for indigenous peoples. IndigenousCommunity-Based Education (pp. 42–66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

May, S. (ed.) (1999b) Indigenous Community-Based Education. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

May, S. (2004) Rethinking linguistic human rights: Answering questions of identity,essentialism and mobility. In J. Freeland and D. Patrick (eds) Language Rights andLanguage Survival (pp. 35–53). Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

May, S. (2005) Language rights: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(3), 319–347.

May, S. (2006) Language policy and minority rights. In T. Ricento (ed.) An introduction tolanguage policy (pp. 255–272). New York: Blackwell.

Mazrui, A. (2004) English in Africa after the Cold War. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Nettle, D. and Romaine, S. (2000) Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ricento, T. (2005) Problems with the ‘language as resource’ discourse in the promotion of

heritage languages in the USA. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (3), 348–368.Risager, K. (2006) Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.Robinson, C. and Gfeller, E. (1997) A basic education programme in Africa: The people’s

own? International Journal of Educational Development 17 (3), 295–302.Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and

Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006) Language policy and linguistic human rights. In T. Ricento

(ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy (pp. 273–291). Oxford: Blackwell.Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Stairs, A. (1988) Beyond cultural inclusion. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins (eds)

Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle (pp. 308–327). Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Stroud, C. (2001) African mother-tongue programmes and the politics of language:Linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development 22 (4), 339–355.

Stroud, C. (2003) Postmodernist perspectives on local languages: African mother-tongueeducation in times of globalisation. International Journal of Bilingual Education andBilingualism 6 (1), 17–36.

Stroud, C. and Heugh, K. (2004) Language rights and linguistic citizenship. In J. Freelandand D. Patrick (eds) Language Rights and Language Survival (pp. 191–218). Manchester,UK: St. Jerome Publishing.

Trudell (2004) The power of the local: Education choices and language maintenanceamong the Bafut, Kom and Nso’ communities of northwest Cameroon, PhD disser-tation, University of Edinburgh.

Trudell, B. (2006) Local agency in the development of minority languages: Threelanguage committees in northwest Cameroon. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development 27 (3), 196–210.

UNESCO (2003) Education in a Multilingual World. Paris: UNESCO.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Appendix: Interviews and Event Observations,11–27 January 2007

Table A1 Sources of interview data

Languagecommunity Persons interviewed Location

Jola-Kwatay Jean Gueye, ‘Rene’, ‘Moussa’ (3 Jola-Kwatay primary school teachers)

Diembering primaryschool

Mancagne Group interview:10 Mancagne transition literacyteachers;3 programme supervisors

Pkumel headquarters,Ziguinchor

Group interview:6 Mancagne basic literacy teachers;2 programme supervisors


‘Auguste’, supervisor of the pilotprogramme of Mancagne basicliteracy classes


Jola-Fogny Two group interviews of:14 Jola-Fogny basic literacy teachers20 transition literacy teachers6 programme supervisors

Government traininginstitute, Ziguinchor

Mancagne andJola-Fogny

M. Maurice Waroo, chief of academicinspection for the region ofZiguinchorM. Sedou Sane, regional authority forliteracy for Ziguinchor

Kadiandoumagne Hotel,Ziguinchor

Noon M. Manu Ndiome, assistant programmemanager for the ENDA Graimliteracy programmeM. Emile Wade, ENDA Graim

ENDA Graim office,Thies

M. Pascal Mbaye, Direction D’EducationCatholique (DIDEC), diocese of Thies

DIDEC office, Thies

Saafi Mme. Rokhaia Seck and M. CheikhSeck, literacy project managers for theADLAS

ADLAS office,Sebikotane


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table A2 Direct observation of events

Language Event Location

Jola-Kwatay Primary 1 classroom: reading inKwatay

Diembering primary school

Primary 3 classroom: reading in French Diembering primary school

Primary 5 classroom: maths class Diembering primary school

Mancagne Mancagne transition literacyprogramme mid-term evaluation


Mancagne basic literacy programmemid-term evaluation


Mancagne basic literacy class Tilene,Ziguinchor

Jola-Fogny Fogny transition literacy programmemid-term evaluation

Government training institute,Ziguinchor

Fogny basic literacy programmemid-term evaluation

Government training institute,Ziguinchor

Noon Noon basic literacy class Ngoumsane, Thies

Note: Additional event observations in January 2006: Saafi basic literacy class,Sebikotane Noon basic literacy class, Thies.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

01:

12 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Practice in Search of a Paradigm: Language Rights, Linguistic Citizenship and Minority Language Communities in Senegal