Sociolinguistics of endangerment: language contact, multilingualism,

social classes and groups

2010 Summer School on Documentary Linguistics in West Africa (Intermediate)

July 19-July 31 2010

What framework exists for work on endangered languages?

• understanding causes of endangerment is essential to developing effective remediation/revitalization programmes

• waiting for a theoretical framework vs piecemeal response

• whatever framework is arrived at, it will include a substantial sociolinguistic basis

Why is sociolinguistics relevant to language endangerment and documentation of

endangered languages?

Varieties of language (1)

• language and dialect

• dialect and sub-dialect

• dialect and idiolect

Varieties of language (2)

• how to distinguish between these?• cognacy rates?

— gives some indication of relatedness, but is otherwise a problematic criterion

• mutual intelligibility?– even more problematic: what constitutes MI?– unidirectional intelligibility

• ‘variety’ used as a ‘neutral’ term

The speech community (1)

• several competing definitions exist, some focus on language, others on communication

• “all the people who use a given language (or dialect)” (Lyons, 1970)

• “any regionally or socially defined human group identifiable by a shared linguistic system” (Crystal, DLP)

The speech community (2)

• “There is no limit to the ways in which human beings league themselves together for self-identification, security, gain, amusement, worship, or any other purposes that are held in common; consequently there is no limit to the number an variety of speech communities that are to be found in society.” (Bolinger, 1975; see also Hudson, 1996)

The speech community (3)

• how useful is the concept of speech community?

– broad definitions and fuzzy boundaries can detract from usefulness

Social network vs speech community

• individuals vs community– community exists b/c individuals conform

• language as a property of the individual– every individual has his or her network of

relationships which may involve different linguistic relationships

Functional domains (1)

“a grouping together of recurring situation types in such a way that one of the languages or varieties in a repertoire, as opposed to others, normally occurs in that class of situations. And members of the speech community judge that the use of that variety and not the others is appropriate to that domain” (Fishman, 1971)

Functional domains (2)

• different types of domain can be identified:• family / home• education• official• religion• intimate • Etc.

Functional domains (3)

• different languages in a multilingual community will typically be used in different domains: e.g. in the Mambila region of Cameroon, French is used in the domain of education and official business, and the local variety of Mambila is the language of the home and of intimacy

Some functional domains of Efutu

• home, though may be restricted– between husband and wife?– between parents and children?– among siblings?– competition exists with Fante

• fishing• market• others ?

Language contact and multilingualism (1)

• situations of language endangerment involve two (and often more) languages in contact

— i.e. a multilingual situation• this multilingual situation may ultimately lead to

endangerment, language shift and the extinction of one or more of the languages

Language contact and multilingualism (2)

• multilingualism exists to different degrees on different planes:– a continuum of degrees of proficiency in usage

– in attitudes towards the different languages

– in personal linguistic histories

Language contact and multilingualism (3)

• multilingualism also varies across social groups– different groups show different patterns of

language choice and use in different circumstances and for different occasions

– groups may be relatively more or less homogeneous in their linguistic repertoires and patterns of linguistic behaviour

Language contact and multilingualism (4)

• societal bilingualismvs

• individual bilingualism

• stable bilingualismvs

• instable bilingualism

• additive bilingualismvs

• replacive bilingualism

Language contact, multilingualism, and language shift

• no adequate theory of language shift• language shift presupposes a period of transitional

bilingualism• often said to take three generations• but, may be complete in two– (what is ‘complete’?)

• some situations of shift take much longer– East Sutherland Gaelic – 200 years?

Language shift

• causality-based approaches– extra-linguistic factors, sociolinguistic factors

• process-based approaches – various degrees of multi- vs monolingualism• sometimes presented as competing views, but are

best seen as complementary

Urbanization and language shift (1)

• in Africa, language shift is largely an issue related to urbanization

• language(s) associated with the urban milieu become more prestigeous, more attractive, than village varieties

• loyalty to home language often strong, but does weaken

Urbanization and language shift (2)

• Kropp Dakubu (2000): investigates language shift among Bawku migrants in Accra

• Mc Laughlin (1995, 2001) reports on language attitudes and shift in the construction of ‘supra-ethnic’ identity in Dakar

• Wolf (1997), similarly, for English in the anglophone region of Cameroon

Urbanization and language shift (3)

• Woods (1994) on language shift in Congo– changing patterns of language knowledge and use

in urban areas (Brazzaville) compared to rural areas

– across age groups, genders, and domains of use• French, Lingala, Munukutuba all gaining ground at

the expense of local languages• diversity (instability) of language use in different

domains reflects the general instability of the linguistic situation of Congo

Sociolinguistic surveys

• sociolinguistic surveys of different types exist, their design a reflection of their purpose

• all involve sampling a population in a controlled manner (balanced for age, gender, etc)

Sociolinguistic surveys: a case in point

Language Knowledge and Use in the Eastern Niger Delta (Nkoroo Town)

B. Connell, A. Akinlabi, I. Essien, E. Obikudo, Wm. Bennett, O-M Ndimele

The language situation of southeastern Nigeria and the Niger Delta (1)

• highly complex, high degree of multilingualism • languages from the Cross River, Igboid, Edoid, and Ijoid

branches of Niger-Congo• Ijoid languages classified as Niger-Congo but are

substantially different from the Benue-Congo languages among which they are enclaved

• also English and Pidgin• provokes interest in how languages interact and ‘compete’;

what is the division of labour among languages sharing the same geographical space

The language situation of southeastern Nigeria and the Niger Delta (2)

• issues surrounding language shift are in focus• such situations are rarely – if ever – stable• issues related to language endangerment also come to the

fore• high degree of language endangerment: Williamson (1997)

suggests virtually all languages in the Delta must be considered threatened

• present research project a response to this situation

Surveys of language knowledge and use

• one means to understanding linguistic situations such as that found in the Delta is through survey work

• several possible designs available; our work in the area involved use of three separate surveys: the village profile (Vossen 1987); a household survey; and a school-based survey

• we sought to investigate what languages are known, used in which situations

Nkoroo Town: geography

• located on the eastern fringes of the Niger Delta• region characterized by creeks, bordered by mangrove

swamps• until recently (and even still?) access required travel by

water• population about 5,000

Nkoroo Town: languages (1)

• Nkoroo, aka Kirika; spoken by virtually all inhabitants• classified as Eastern Ịjọ, but distinct from Kalabari, Okrika

and Iḅani• intergeneration transmission unbroken• functional domains decreasing

Nkoroo Town: languages (2)

• Defaka spoken in just one ward of Nkoroo and in Iwoama• classified as a separate branch of Ijoid (Jenwari 1983;

Connell et al 2009) • Nkoroo the language of daily use for all Defaka• now spoken fluently by fewer than 50 people;

intergeneration transmission is largely broken • long-standing relationship between Defaka and Nkoroo;

Nkoroo do not learn Defaka

Nkoroo Town: languages (3)

• many residents have knowledge of one or more other local languages, among them other Ịjọ varieties such as Kirike (Okrika), Iḅani, and Kalabari, as well as non-Ijoid languages such as Igbo, Kana, Gokana, Obolo, Ibibio

• Both Defaka and Nkoroo endangered, though Defaka much more precarious

• subjects of a DEL (NSF) documentation project

Language documentation

• should include more than a sample of the linguistic structures of a language

• the linguistic ecology of a language is as much a part of the language as its morphosyntactic structures, phonological and phonetic structures

• information on language knowledge and use a part of documentation

• permits insight into the factors that contribute to endangerment

Surveys of language knowledge and use in Nkoroo town

• three surveys• village profile: group interview with chiefs and other

dignitaries

– questions pertaining to languages spoken in the village, village amenities, village history

• household: a door-to-door survey of selected households (total = 301); Defaka ward, 57; other parts of town, 231; Iwoama, 16

• school: the school at Iwoma (primary), X schools in Nkoroo (primary and secondary)

Household survey: method

• adult member of the household interviewed as to language knowledge and use, and that of children in the household; interviewees were asked to list up to four languages, in order of frequency of use for each of four questions

• conducted by team members with local assistants

Household survey: questions

• language knowledge among family members (adults, children 5 – 15, children 1 – 5)

• language(s) spoken at home (adults, children 5 – 15, children 1 – 5)

• language(s) spoken outside the home, to people of same ethnolinguistic group (adults, children 5 – 15, children 1 – 5)

• language(s) spoken outside the home, to people of different ethnolinguistic group (adults, children 5 – 15, children 1 – 5)

Household survey: results (1)

Defaka

Kirika English Pidgin Igbo

Adults 31% 100% 10% 27% 8%Children 5-15

23% 93% 13% 29% 1%

Children 1-5

10% 88% 7% 28% –

Table 1: Language knowledge, preference 1 and 2 combined.

Household survey: results (2)

Defaka Kirika English Pidgin IgboAdults 28% 99% 8% 35% 4%Children 5-15

23% 89% 11% 37% 1%

Children 1-5

20% 87% 4% 31% –

Table 2: Languages spoken at home, preference 1 and 2 combined

Household survey: results (3)

Defaka Kirika English

Pidgin Igbo

Adults 20% 100% 26% 37% 4%Children 5-15

10% 88% 23% 36% –

Children 1-5

1% 75% 4% 32% –

Table 3: Languages spoken at outside the home, same group, preference 1 and 2 combined.

Household survey: results (4)

Defaka

Kirike English Pidgin Igbo

Adults – 2% 46% 49% 36%Children 5-15

– – 46% 50% 2%

Children 1-5

– – 20% 44% –

Table 4: Languages spoken at outside the home, different group, preference 1 and 2 combined.

School survey: method

• conducted in primary and secondary schools at Nkoroo, primary school at Iwoama;

• total respondents, 187• age range, 6 – 22; median age, 14.5• Conducted with assistance of headmaster, National Youth

Corps members

School survey: questions

• What languages are spoken in the village? (At least nine different languages indentified.)

• What is your language?• What other languages do you speak?• What language do you speak best?• What language do you prefer to speak?• What language do you speak with your siblings?• What language do you speak with your friends?

School survey summary

• confirm results of household survey• but, no mention of pidgin (!)

Summary

• knowledge and use of Defaka– restricted to home environment– even so, clearly decreasing

• knowledge and use of Kirika– used in more domains than Defaka, but decreasing

• knowledge and use of other languages– status of Igbo fading?– rise of English, Pidgin

Implications and Conclusions (1)

• evidence for language shift

– lack of intergeneration transmission of Defaka suggestive of shift; but shift to Kirika is long-standing; rather, Defaka falls into disuse

– greater use of English/Pidgin among younger people suggestive of shift

– lesser use of Igbo among younger vis à vis older people suggests the decline of its influence in this corner of the Delta (Or, ?)

Implications and Conclusions (2)

• role of colonial languages in language shift/endangerment in Africa: most commentators, e.g. Batibo (2005), Connell (1998), Mous (2003), Mufwene & Vigouroux 2007) seem to downplay threat posed by former colonial languages

• evidence provided here supports that of e.g. Schaefer & Egbokhare (1999), Williamson (1997), that English does indeed present a substantial threat to local languages

• distinction between English and Pidgin problematic

References• Batibo, Herman M. (2005). Language Decline and Death in Africa. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.• Connell, Bruce (1998). Moribund languages of the Nigeria-Cameroon borderland. In Brenzinger, M. (ed.)

Endangered Languages in Africa. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 207–225.• Connell, Bruce (2000). Factors in language attrition in Africa. Paper presented at Against All Odds: African

Languages and Literatures in the 21st Century. Asmara, Eritrea.• Connell, Bruce, William Bennett, Inoma Essien, Ebitari Obikudo, Akinbiyi Akinlabi, Inoma Essien, & Ozo-mekuri

Ndimele (2009). Defaka and Ịjọ: a reassessment of the Ijoid hypothesis. Paper presented at the 6th World Congress of African Linguistic, Köln, August 2009.

• Jenewari, C. E. W. (1983). Defaka: Ijo's closest linguistic relative. Port Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press.

• Mous, Maarten (2003). Loss of linguistic diversity in Africa. In Janse, M., S. Tol & V. Hendriks (eds.) Language Death and Language Maintenance. Theoretical, practical and descriptive approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 157–170.

• Mufwene, Salikoko S. & Cécile B. Vigouroux (2008). Colonization, globalization, and language vitality in Africa: an introduction. In Vigouroux, C. B. & S. Mufwene (eds.) Globalization and Language Vitality: Perspectives from Africa. London: Continuum, 1–31.

• Schaefer, R. P. & F. O. Egbokhare (1999). English and the pace of endangerment in Nigeria. World Englishes 18: 381–391.

• Williamson, Kay & Roger Blench (2000). Niger-Congo. In Heine, B. & D. Nurse (eds.) African Languages: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 11–42.

Research funded by the NSF (DEL Program)Award ID 0553971

Akinbiyi Akinlabi and Bruce Connell

Documenting Defaka [afn] and Nkoroo [nkx]

Summary: importance of a sociolinguistic perspective in endangerment studies

• understanding causes, processes in language decline

• development of revitalization strategies• information bearing on these issues largely

gleaned from survey work