|
 |
The development of French in Africa | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
| Saim Pentaglot Senior Member AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5084 days ago 124 posts - 215 votes  Speaks: Serbo-Croatian, English*, Catalan, Spanish, Polish Studies: Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Occitan, Punjabi, Urdu, Arabic (Maghribi), French, Modern Hebrew, Ukrainian, Slovenian | Message 73 of 135 14 November 2011 at 1:34am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I don't understand the argument that adopting indigenous vernaculars would kill off other languages. It wouldn't necessarily. Sure, if you follow the model of France, the UK, the US or China it would. But how about places like post-Franco Spain, Canada, Switzerland, and so on that maintain many indigenous languages as official? Even in postcolonial countries this has been done, such as India (2 primary official languages; , South Africa (11 official languages, with 1-3 dominant ones) and the Philippines (2 primary official, and a number of regional ones). In all these cases, the colonial language and the largest local vernacular have been maintained at the federal/state level and the other local languages are official in their respective regions. I think Africa could easily do this. Some African countries have already done this.
2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Rutabaga Bilingual Pentaglot Newbie Romania Joined 4928 days ago 27 posts - 46 votes Speaks: English*, Slovenian*, French, German, Russian Studies: Portuguese, Uzbek | Message 74 of 135 14 November 2011 at 2:30am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I don't think anyone is saying it would kill off the other languages. It simply isn't practical. The point is, there isn't always one largest language.
2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| strikingstar Bilingual Tetraglot Senior Member United States Joined 5174 days ago 292 posts - 444 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin*, Cantonese, Swahili Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written) | Message 75 of 135 14 November 2011 at 3:25am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
@ s_allard
You cannot compare Sub-Saharan Africa with Norway/Iceland/Israel. (Barring the minorities, Norway/Iceland/Israel have ethinically and culturally homogenous populations.) It is not difficult to have an indigenous language as a local language under these situations. Then you look at Sub-Saharan Africa. Chaga people see themselves as very different from Maasai. Hutus see themselves as absolutely different from Tutsis. A Luo sees himself as different from Kikuyu. I don't want to upset any sensitivities here but do Norwegians even see themselves as vastly distinct from Swedes? Norwegians and Swedes have a shared ancestry as well as similar cultures and languages. In fact they were ruled by the same kings at different points in history. Israel is an absolute no-brainer. Its creation was for the establishment of a Jewish state. How much diversity do you expect from a population with a shared ethno- religious background? That they adopt Hebrew, the language of the Torah, as the official language is just a natural progression. Likewise, in Northern Africa. Arabic vs. French. Arabic wins out every day and twice on Sundays because Northern African countries are Islamic countries. Is it even surprising that an Islamic country adopt the language of the Quran as the official language? Now look at West Africa, the dominant religion is Islam, not Christianity. But even then, it is not an absolute majority. In Nigeria, you cannot even walk two blocks without seeing a church sign. Simply put, these countries are unified neither by ancestry, culture, or religion. I argue that in Sub-Saharan Africa, ethnic and tribal affiliations are stronger than the national identity for reasons I've previously mentioned. But I could repeat them. a) Arbitrary borders. Simply put, the Europeans came one day and said: "You know, I'll just carve up this nice piece of land here for my country. And all peoples and tribes that happen to fall within this section of land shall swear fealty to my country. Yes, that's what I'll do." Most African countries did not experience natural growth towards nationhood. Different peoples were slapped together hodge podge and suddenly found themselves belonging to the same country without much fanfare. The only shared history between these disparate peoples is one of oppression and enslavement. And now that they've emerged into the age of "enlightenment", where do they find themselves? In dire poverty (because that's how the West left them) and still enslaved by the global North through debt. What kind of national pride does that instill? Look at Central African Republic? What kind of name is that? Would England call itself "Slightly-off Continental Europe Republic"? b) High ethnic and cultural heterogeneity. Teeming and vibrant metropolises like Lagos and Joburg are not the true face of Africa. A sizeable number of the population still lives in rural areas and functions at a subsistence level. They do not have much interaction with other tribes/ethnicities. To mandate that they recognize some other group's language as their official language would be to shove an essentially foreign culture down their throats. It is not too different from shoving a colonial language down their throats. c) Age of countries. Most African countries are still young. They have not had much time to develop as a nation and achieve a national identity. That's why they'll still fallback on ethnic and tribal allegiances first and foremost. Israel is also young. But their cultural homogeneity and their shared history of triumph (against the Arabs) mitigates that entirely. s_allard you cannot just point at random countries and say that if something works in these countries then they must work in other countries too. Circumstances are so different. Edited by strikingstar on 14 November 2011 at 12:10pm 4 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6551 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog | Message 76 of 135 14 November 2011 at 5:48am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I don't see anything showing whether the percentage of French speakers is increasing. Please point it out. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Saim Pentaglot Senior Member AustraliaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5084 days ago 124 posts - 215 votes Speaks: Serbo-Croatian, English*, Catalan, Spanish, Polish Studies: Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Occitan, Punjabi, Urdu, Arabic (Maghribi), French, Modern Hebrew, Ukrainian, Slovenian | Message 77 of 135 14 November 2011 at 11:57am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Once again, several languages can be developed in terms of education and politics, especially at the religional level. Look at India as an example. It is not impractical to have several official languages, as many countries do this. From Ari:
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Haldor Triglot Senior Member France Joined 5616 days ago 103 posts - 122 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Swedish Studies: French, Spanish | Message 78 of 135 14 November 2011 at 12:13pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I guess one thing which gives French a good hope in Africa is the fact that Portuguese is still so present there( Angola, Mozambique and a few islands). If Portuguese, a languange that is inferior in Africa and the rest of the world, has managed to maintain such a solid position, why shouldn't French? Oh, I know that in Angola, Portuguese settlers were very effective in implementing their own language, but still, most of Africa is not lusophone....
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5431 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 79 of 135 14 November 2011 at 3:32pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
The hoary argument that keeps coming back is that the African countries are ethnically so diverse and full of conflict that it is impossible to conceive of choosing an indigenous language as a national language. The national borders are arbitrary and these countries are young. Therefore we have to maintain the status quo.
First of all, as was pointed out, there are a number of countries where a local language is spoken in various forms as a first or second language over large areas. Here is a the Wikepedia entry on Swahili: "Swahili or Kiswahili[3] (known in Swahili itself as Kiswahili) is a Bantu language spoken by various ethnic groups that inhabit several large stretches of the Indian Ocean coastline from northern Kenya to northern Mozambique, including the Comoros Islands.[4] It is also spoken by ethnic minority groups in Mauritius[citation needed], Oman, the Seychelles and Somalia. Although only five million people speak Swahili as their native language,[5] the total number of speakers exceeds 100 million.[6] It serves as a national, or official language, of four nations: Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Within much of East Africa, it is often used as a lingua franca." Note that it is one of the national (not official) languages of the Democratic Republic of the Congo which alone has a population of 71,000,000. In this ethnically very diverse country, there is a major lingua franca, Lingala, a relative of Swahili that covers the capital Kinshasa and much of the country. There about 2 million native speakers and 8 to 30 million second language speakers. If you look at a map of geography of Lingala and Swahili as trade languages, you see that they occupy a huge swath of central, eastern and part of southern Africa. In fact, if you look a Africa in terms of language families, trade languages and lingua franca, large groupings emerge. In West Africa, for example, one notes that Bambara and a very close relative, Dyula, cover a very large area. What most observers, including people here, fail to recognize is that contact between peoples inevitably leads to the development of a common medium of communication. This is not unique to Africa. It's just that in Africa, outside observers see tribes and ethnic conflict everywhere, so they throw their hands up in the air and declare that a colonial language is needed to keep these people from each others throats. Let's take the example of Côte d'Ivoire, considered one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse countries in Africa, if not in the world. There are over 60 ethnic groups and 70 languages in Côte d'Ivoire. How in the world could an African language be considered for status as a national language in a situation like this? French is the only solution, say most outside observers. Well, it's not as cut and dry as that. If you look carefully, you will note: 1. All these languages fall into four families 2. Only 17 of the 70 languages are spoken by more than 100,000 people 3. One language, Dyula or Dioula, closely related to Bambara, mentioned above, is in fact the lingua franca of Côte d'Ivoire. Here is what a University of Laval document says: "Le dioula occupe une position privilégiée, car il sert de langue véhiculaire commerçante entre les Ivoiriens; bien qu'il ne constitue la langue maternelle que de 14,8 % de la population, il serait parlé comme langue seconde (à des degrés divers) par sept millions de locuteurs, ce qui lui confère un rôle important comme langue véhiculaire, notamment dans les échanges commerciaux. La vitalité des langues ivoiriennes ne fait pas de doute puisque 88 % des conversations relevées dans les marchés se font dans l'une de ces langues. De plus, la moitié des enfants parleraient au moins deux langues africaines dont le dioula, le baoulé, le bété et l'agni. C'est pourquoi il demeure surprenant que les langues ivoiriennes n'aient pas encore obtenu un rôle plus important dans la vie sociale du pays." Source I'll translate the last sentence so that everybody understands: "This is why (the vitality of the local languages) it is surprising that the Ivoirian languages do not play a more important role in the country." Now, let's look at French in Côte d'Ivoire. Here is what the same source says: "Quant au français, c'est la langue officielle de l'État et celle de l'école. On estime qu'environ les deux tiers de la population âgée de six ans et plus pratique «une forme de français». Plus d'un million de locuteurs n'utilisent qu'une variété pidginisée de français, appelée parfois «français petit-nègre», idiome à peu près inintelligible pour un francophone non ivoirien." Note that the observer says, "une forme de français" and then goes on to speak about a French-based pidgin spoken exclusively by over a million users. This is not surprising. This is a phenomenon that I mentioned before. In all the francophone countries, there has arisen a local variety of French in contact with the indigenous African languages. Could Dyula be the official language? Of course, it could. It already is a major lingua franca. Could the French pidgin be the official language? As improbable as that may appear, why not? The real reason why none of this will happen in the foreseeable future lies in the presence of a large European presence, especially the 20,000 French citizens or people with dual citizenship. One should also note the existence of a large Syrian-Lebanese community that is very prominent in business. The second point I would like to make is that we are already seeing the spontaneous development of national languages that have not necessarily obtained official status. In previous posts I gave the example of Senegal and the reasons why this is happening. It should also be pointed out that there is a lot of work being done by academics codifying and standardizing certain languages for the purpose of using them as vehicular languages. Africa is not doomed to the use of the colonial languages because of ethnic and linguistic diversity. This is a myth that has been perpetuated since the colonial era. Now, the likelihood of the situation changing soon is very low, I will admit. But, technically there is nothing to prevent either an indigenous language or a local variety of the colonial language from rising to the status of official language. Lastly, I would like to address the issue of ethnic groups being oppressed or discriminated against by the choice of an African language instead of the "neutral" colonial language. Yes, people will complain and grumble. But keep in mind that the process involves taking a lingua franca and giving it a higher status. As I have pointed out previously, this has happened everywhere else in the world as one variety or language becomes the official national or common language. I gave the examples of French, Italian and Mandarin. People accept, often grudgingly, because the advantages are clear. If the situation is untenable, then the solution may be to break up the country and form new ethnic and linguistic entities. All of these things have happened and are happening before our eyes in Europe and elsewhere. But for some reason, many observers feel that sub-saharan Africa is condemned to maintaining the current situation forever. Edited by s_allard on 14 November 2011 at 8:57pm 6 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| iguanamon Pentaglot Senior Member Virgin Islands Speaks: Ladino Joined 5263 days ago 2241 posts - 6731 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, Creole (French) | Message 80 of 135 14 November 2011 at 4:00pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
@s_allard, you raise several interesting points that I had not considered before. I had thought that urbanization in the former French African colonies would naturally lead to greater adoption of French. This phenomenon has been observed in Angola and Mozambique with Portuguese and with English in Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya. I thought that this would be transferable to French Africa as well. Perhaps this also has to do with the relatively shorter contact time that France has had with the majority of its former African empire. I stand corrected. Thank you for the well phrased and interesting comments.
1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
