135 messages over 17 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 7 ... 16 17 Next >>
nway
Senior Member
United States
youtube.com/user/Vic
Joined 5419 days ago
574 posts - 1707 votes 
Speaks: English*
Studies: Spanish, Mandarin, Japanese, Korean
| Message 49 of 135 12 November 2011 at 6:06am | IP Logged |
lecavaleur wrote:
| It's a great thing for an Anglo-American to learn Spanish, but not learning it will not disadvantage him in any way unless maybe he wants to live in Miami |
|
|
Here in Southern California, it seems like one out of every seven job listings on Craigslist requires bilingualism in Spanish...
1 person has voted this message useful
| s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 5434 days ago
2704 posts - 5425 votes
Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish
| Message 50 of 135 12 November 2011 at 7:41am | IP Logged |
lecavaleur wrote:
I am not suggesting that francophone Africa itself is as francophone as, say, Paris. I am saying that an African francophone who adopts French as his main language of communication is no less a francophone than someone in Paris.
I see that you are in Canada, and I can only assume that you have interiorised the word 'francophone' as meaning « de langue maternelle française », which is not the case. This understanding of the word comes from Canada's obsession with who speaks which official language and where. If you look the word 'francophone' up in the dictionary, here is the definition you will find : « Qui parle habituellement le français. Les Africains francophones. » (Le Robert Micro, édition 2006).
Nowhere is it mentioned that to be francophone, your first language must be French. This is a Canadian usage only that is a product of Canadian language politics.
The article you quote mentions Léopold Senghor, first Black member of the Académie française. Are we to believe that he was somehow less francophone than some schmuck in a Parisian HLM simply because his native language was Sérère and not French? Absolutely not.
Anyone who adopts French as his usual language of communication is francophone à part entière. |
|
|
Well I can accept a distinction between let's say "francophone de naissance" and ' francophone d'adoption." The latter case would apply to a certain number of Africans. So let's say that less than 5% of Africans are francophones de naissance and a larger percentage--let's say 20%--are francophones d'adoption. Without getting into an argument over numbers, it is clear in my observations that for the vast majority of Africans, French is a second language. Yes the African elites have adopted French as their usual means of communications, but it is certainly not the case of the majority of the population. Are they francophones d'adoption?
2 persons have voted this message useful
| Solfrid Cristin
Heptaglot
Winner TAC 2011 & 2012
Senior Member
Norway
Joined 5338 days ago
4143 posts - 8864 votes
Speaks: Norwegian*, Spanish, Swedish, French, English, German, Italian
Studies: Russian
| Message 51 of 135 12 November 2011 at 8:44am | IP Logged |
Can I throw in a question which may be a tad off topic? Since it regards Africa and "la francophonie", I'll dear it: The people in Mauritius speak Creole, which is a variation of French, at home, but English or French in official situations or when meeting foreigners. Would they then be considered "francophones de naissance" or "francophones d'adoption"?
Creole is not technically French, it is considered another language, but it is really close to French.
1 person has voted this message useful
| strikingstar
Bilingual Tetraglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5177 days ago
292 posts - 444 votes
Speaks: English*, Mandarin*, Cantonese, Swahili
Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written)
| Message 52 of 135 12 November 2011 at 10:17am | IP Logged |
s_allard wrote:
Africa has to be the only continent in the world where the official languages are often
not indigenous or primary languages of its populations. I can't think of a country in
Europe, Asia or the Americas where this is the case. But in Africa, many of the
countries have an official language that was imposed by colonial rulers. But it is a
plain fact that all African countries have indigenous languages that are the primary
languages of the population.
|
|
|
You cannot possibly equate indigenous languages with primary languages. Otherwise, you
would have no problem if French-speaking Africa abandoned their native languages in
favor of French. Latin America is a case in point. Quecha, Aymara, Mayan, Guarani etc
are indigenous Latin American languages. Spanish is not. Spanish is just another
language of the colonists. But the reason why Spanish has become a primary language in
Latin America is because Latin America was colonized centuries before Africa. Time is a
huge factor in the adoption of a language. Additionally, enslavement of the natives,
the destruction of their cities and homes as well as their expulsion from native lands
helped to create conditions for Spanish to thrive. However, probably the biggest reason
many indigenous languages died is because many indigenous populations were pre-literate
prior to the arrival of the coloinists. The lack of a writing system led to the death
of their culture, language and art when Spanish took over.
And Latin America isn't the only example. Bahasa Indonesia isn't an official language
either. Javanese, Sundanese, Balinese etc are indigenous Indonesian languages. BI was
adopted for convenience.
African countries need a unifying language for the sake of convenience. That this
language happens to be that of a colonial power is ugly but unavoidable. Most African
countries comprise of numerous tribes and the tribal identity is very strong. In Tz,
it's not surprising to hear comments like "the Wachaga are rich", "the Kisumu are good
fishermen" or that "the Maasai love their cows". Obviously stereotypes. I've even heard
people say they didn't like Obama because his dad was Luo (and Luo is not even
Tanzanian mind you). I conjecture that this is because most African countries gained
independence only relatively recently as well as the fact that most countries have
borders which are completely arbitrary - obviously a direct result of Europe carving up
Africa during the Great Scramble. Arbitrary borders mean that dissimilar groups and
cultures are bundled together to coexist in arbitrarily constructed countries. Of
course there are many other countries where different tribes/ethnicities live together.
But tribal affiliations aren't as strong in other countries and the Africans never had
a choice in the establishment of their countries. South Sudan only just seceded from
Sudan. And Somalia is still fighting its civil war. But the deed has been done. To
advance as a country, a neutral language that doesn't favor any one tribe is necessary,
unless of course there is a dominant tribe within the country. Look at Ethiopia for
example. It's never been colonized (kudos) but it's nevertheless adopted English as an
offiical language alongside Amharic. But given that Oromo is becoming as widespread as
Amharic, Oromo might also be recognized as an official language as well in time.
Edited by strikingstar on 12 November 2011 at 10:26am
4 persons have voted this message useful
| s_allard
Triglot
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 5434 days ago
2704 posts - 5425 votes
Speaks: French*, English, Spanish
Studies: Polish
| Message 53 of 135 12 November 2011 at 3:47pm | IP Logged |
strikingstar wrote:
s_allard wrote:
Africa has to be the only continent in the world where the official languages are often
not indigenous or primary languages of its populations. I can't think of a country in
Europe, Asia or the Americas where this is the case. But in Africa, many of the
countries have an official language that was imposed by colonial rulers. But it is a
plain fact that all African countries have indigenous languages that are the primary
languages of the population.
|
|
|
You cannot possibly equate indigenous languages with primary languages. Otherwise, you
would have no problem if French-speaking Africa abandoned their native languages in
favor of French. Latin America is a case in point. Quecha, Aymara, Mayan, Guarani etc
are indigenous Latin American languages. Spanish is not. Spanish is just another
language of the colonists. But the reason why Spanish has become a primary language in
Latin America is because Latin America was colonized centuries before Africa. Time is a
huge factor in the adoption of a language. Additionally, enslavement of the natives,
the destruction of their cities and homes as well as their expulsion from native lands
helped to create conditions for Spanish to thrive. However, probably the biggest reason
many indigenous languages died is because many indigenous populations were pre-literate
prior to the arrival of the coloinists. The lack of a writing system led to the death
of their culture, language and art when Spanish took over.
And Latin America isn't the only example. Bahasa Indonesia isn't an official language
either. Javanese, Sundanese, Balinese etc are indigenous Indonesian languages. BI was
adopted for convenience.
African countries need a unifying language for the sake of convenience. That this
language happens to be that of a colonial power is ugly but unavoidable. Most African
countries comprise of numerous tribes and the tribal identity is very strong. In Tz,
it's not surprising to hear comments like "the Wachaga are rich", "the Kisumu are good
fishermen" or that "the Maasai love their cows". Obviously stereotypes. I've even heard
people say they didn't like Obama because his dad was Luo (and Luo is not even
Tanzanian mind you). I conjecture that this is because most African countries gained
independence only relatively recently as well as the fact that most countries have
borders which are completely arbitrary - obviously a direct result of Europe carving up
Africa during the Great Scramble. Arbitrary borders mean that dissimilar groups and
cultures are bundled together to coexist in arbitrarily constructed countries. Of
course there are many other countries where different tribes/ethnicities live together.
But tribal affiliations aren't as strong in other countries and the Africans never had
a choice in the establishment of their countries. South Sudan only just seceded from
Sudan. And Somalia is still fighting its civil war. But the deed has been done. To
advance as a country, a neutral language that doesn't favor any one tribe is necessary,
unless of course there is a dominant tribe within the country. Look at Ethiopia for
example. It's never been colonized (kudos) but it's nevertheless adopted English as an
offiical language alongside Amharic. But given that Oromo is becoming as widespread as
Amharic, Oromo might also be recognized as an official language as well in time.
|
|
|
There are a number of interesting points here. First of all, if I can quote myself, I said, "...indigenous or primary languages of its populations." I used the word primary to take into account those very situations where a major or primary language was not technically indigenous. For example, one could argue that English is not indigenous to North America. But it is quite clear that the situation of English in North America is not analogous to that of French in Africa. It is true that English, Spanish and Portuguese were colonial languages in the Americas, but unlike French in Africa, they became primary languages because of massive immigration and what could be termed genocide. Had millions of French (and English) settled in Africa and had much of the indigenous population been wiped out or decimated through disease and sheer oppression, the linguistic situation would have been very different today.
Look at the development of Afrikaans in South Africa. While it is not an indigenous language, it's development into a "national" or primary distinct language is the clear result of a) massive immigration and b) a dominant political position.
The number one argument for the retention of colonial languages, and specifically French and English in Africa, is that, despite certain inconveniences and painful historical associations, they are a) neutral languages in a situation of conflicting ethnic (tribal) identities that is exacerbated by the arbitrary borders and b) these colonial languages are advantageous for international communication and access to modern civilization.
Let me first point out that the rise of dominant official languages in Europe was accompanied by the elimination or certainly the oppression of regional languages, many of which subsist today either in the form of dialects or as local languages. In France, for example, there are still remnants of either dialects such as le picard and le normand or outright languages such as le breton, le basque, l'occitan and le corse. There is still even today some political agitation over the political status of these regional or minority languages.
Italy is a case in point where the imposition of a unified national Italian language is relatively recent and where regional languages are still very present.
But the main point here is that the dominant or national standardized language is a local language that has risen to prominence because of political and economic power. It often was the majority language and certainly has become so today. The majority of the population can identify with the language as their "heritage" language, the language of their cultural identity, especially relative to other countries.
For rather obvious reasons, nationalism almost always has as one of its components a reference to a national language. And political independence usually leads to resurgence of hitherto repressed national languages. We've seen this throughout Europe even quite recently.
Just as a side note and "un clin d'oeil" to Solfrid Cristin, it is should be pointed out that tiny Norway has two official varieties of the Norwegian language, the result of a nationalist movement. I highly recommend the Wikipedia entry here:
Norwegian language
Now, let's look at Africa. Yes, there are many ethnic (I prefer this term to tribal), conflicts. Yes, political independence has been relatively recent. Yes, most of the primary or indigenous languages are lexically underdeveloped and even until quite recently unwritten. Yes, the former colonial languages, English, Portuguese, Spanish and French are great languages of modern civilization.
But are these reasons sufficient for maintaining a status quo inherited from the colonial era? I argue no. Furthermore, I argue that these languages should be demoted to second languages--I'm not saying eliminated--and replaced as national languages by an indigenous or primary local language.
Since this post is becoming quite long already, I'll be very brief. A national language should be a language that the population (some parts grudgingly, of course) can identify with. This is the fundamental argument of linguistic nationalism. How can you identify with a language that was a vehicle of oppression, slavery and injustice? And furthermore, by retaining these colonial languages, one is always confronted with the dynamic of "proper" language, e.g. the French of France, and "bad" or local variety that inevitably develops. Thus, we see throughout all of Africa tiny elites that speak "good" language acquired in the best private schools or abroad. We also see the presence of large expatriate communities or international aid workers who use these languages.
What you also see everywhere is coexistence of localized varieties of these colonial languages and in fact a spectrum of usage from the highly eurocentric language of the elite to some sort of creolized or pidginized variety spoken by large sectors of the population.
In a previous post, I referred to two articles that spoke alarmingly about the decline of French in Senegal that was always considered the most francophile of all the francophone countries of Africa. What we are seeing is simply the rise of a national language (let's call in Senegalese) based on a majority language, Wolof. Of course, certain speakers of minority languages will complain. The expat community (from France, Canada and other countries) will be livid. My God, we will have to learn an African language! Some school teachers (of French) will complain. Others will jump on the bandwagon.
What is happening? I believe it's a combination of three phenomena. First, Wolof was already a dominant indigenous language and a lingua franca throughout all of Senegal. Second, there has been the rise of nationalist sentiment and national cultural identity. And third, an gradual detachment from France that has become increasingly more hostile to Africans in France. Put all of that together and you get exactly what was described in both articles: the mixing of Wolof with French even among the francophile elite and the increasing dominance of Wolof as a language of everyday communication in situations hitherto reserved for French.
When we speak of African languages, observers always insist on the large number of languages spoken in many countries. Over 200 hundred languages in Côte d'Ivoire. In fact, throughout all of Africa, there are either trade languages (e.g. Diula in Côte d'Ivoire), language families or even pidgins and creoles that facilitate intercommunication. Think for example of Kiswahili in much of East Africa. In today's world of increasing travel, commerce and communication, the trend towards some common language is inevitable within national borders. If an indigenous lingua franca is not immediately available, then a localized variety of a former colonial language could be an excellent solution. Although no countries have given official status to creolized languages (like Krio in Sierra Leone or Kreyol in Liberia), there is a similar dynamic everywhere of creation of indigenous varieties of the dominant language.
The advantages of having an indigenous or primary language as a national language are self-evident. It's the country's own language, the language of culture, the language of the majority. It's the mark of national identity. It changes the relationship between countries and especially between their speakers. Users are not being compared with those who speak "good" or "proper" language. Foreigners are expected to learn the local language and not impose their language.
There are situations where one may have multiple national languages reflecting social and political realities, but at least we are still talking about widely spoken local languages.
All the other questions of lack of writing systems, technical and scientific vocabulary and lack of standardization are mere technical issues. If Norway, a country of less than 6 million people, can survive with its own two varieties of a national language in today's world, and if Israel can make a nearly dead language, Hebrew, into a vibrant national language, Africa does not need these former colonial languages as national languages. Of course, they have a role as languages of international communication. As second languages.
Edited by s_allard on 12 November 2011 at 5:34pm
5 persons have voted this message useful
| Haldor
Triglot
Senior Member
France
Joined 5619 days ago
103 posts - 122 votes
Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Swedish
Studies: French, Spanish
| Message 54 of 135 12 November 2011 at 6:06pm | IP Logged |
s_allard wrote:
strikingstar wrote:
s_allard wrote:
Africa has to be the only continent in the world where the official languages are often
not indigenous or primary languages of its populations. I can't think of a country in
Europe, Asia or the Americas where this is the case. But in Africa, many of the
countries have an official language that was imposed by colonial rulers. But it is a
plain fact that all African countries have indigenous languages that are the primary
languages of the population.
|
|
|
You cannot possibly equate indigenous languages with primary languages. Otherwise, you
would have no problem if French-speaking Africa abandoned their native languages in
favor of French. Latin America is a case in point. Quecha, Aymara, Mayan, Guarani etc
are indigenous Latin American languages. Spanish is not. Spanish is just another
language of the colonists. But the reason why Spanish has become a primary language in
Latin America is because Latin America was colonized centuries before Africa. Time is a
huge factor in the adoption of a language. Additionally, enslavement of the natives,
the destruction of their cities and homes as well as their expulsion from native lands
helped to create conditions for Spanish to thrive. However, probably the biggest reason
many indigenous languages died is because many indigenous populations were pre-literate
prior to the arrival of the coloinists. The lack of a writing system led to the death
of their culture, language and art when Spanish took over.
And Latin America isn't the only example. Bahasa Indonesia isn't an official language
either. Javanese, Sundanese, Balinese etc are indigenous Indonesian languages. BI was
adopted for convenience.
African countries need a unifying language for the sake of convenience. That this
language happens to be that of a colonial power is ugly but unavoidable. Most African
countries comprise of numerous tribes and the tribal identity is very strong. In Tz,
it's not surprising to hear comments like "the Wachaga are rich", "the Kisumu are good
fishermen" or that "the Maasai love their cows". Obviously stereotypes. I've even heard
people say they didn't like Obama because his dad was Luo (and Luo is not even
Tanzanian mind you). I conjecture that this is because most African countries gained
independence only relatively recently as well as the fact that most countries have
borders which are completely arbitrary - obviously a direct result of Europe carving up
Africa during the Great Scramble. Arbitrary borders mean that dissimilar groups and
cultures are bundled together to coexist in arbitrarily constructed countries. Of
course there are many other countries where different tribes/ethnicities live together.
But tribal affiliations aren't as strong in other countries and the Africans never had
a choice in the establishment of their countries. South Sudan only just seceded from
Sudan. And Somalia is still fighting its civil war. But the deed has been done. To
advance as a country, a neutral language that doesn't favor any one tribe is necessary,
unless of course there is a dominant tribe within the country. Look at Ethiopia for
example. It's never been colonized (kudos) but it's nevertheless adopted English as an
offiical language alongside Amharic. But given that Oromo is becoming as widespread as
Amharic, Oromo might also be recognized as an official language as well in time.
|
|
|
There are a number of interesting points here. First of all, if I can quote myself, I said, "...indigenous or primary languages of its populations." I used the word primary to take into account those very situations where a major or primary language was not technically indigenous. For example, one could argue that English is not indigenous to North America. But it is quite clear that the situation of English in North America is not analogous to that of French in Africa. It is true that English, Spanish and Portuguese were colonial languages in the Americas, but unlike French in Africa, they became primary languages because of massive immigration and what could be termed genocide. Had millions of French (and English) settled in Africa and had much of the indigenous population been wiped out or decimated through disease and sheer oppression, the linguistic situation would have been very different today.
Look at the development of Afrikaans in South Africa. While it is not an indigenous language, it's development into a "national" or primary distinct language is the clear result of a) massive immigration and b) a dominant political position.
The number one argument for the retention of colonial languages, and specifically French and English in Africa, is that, despite certain inconveniences and painful historical associations, they are a) neutral languages in a situation of conflicting ethnic (tribal) identities that is exacerbated by the arbitrary borders and b) these colonial languages are advantageous for international communication and access to modern civilization.
Let me first point out that the rise of dominant official languages in Europe was accompanied by the elimination or certainly the oppression of regional languages, many of which subsist today either in the form of dialects or as local languages. In France, for example, there are still remnants of either dialects such as le picard and le normand or outright languages such as le breton, le basque, l'occitan and le corse. There is still even today some political agitation over the political status of these regional or minority languages.
Italy is a case in point where the imposition of a unified national Italian language is relatively recent and where regional languages are still very present.
But the main point here is that the dominant or national standardized language is a local language that has risen to prominence because of political and economic power. It often was the majority language and certainly has become so today. The majority of the population can identify with the language as their "heritage" language, the language of their cultural identity, especially relative to other countries.
For rather obvious reasons, nationalism almost always has as one of its components a reference to a national language. And political independence usually leads to resurgence of hitherto repressed national languages. We've seen this throughout Europe even quite recently.
Just as a side note and "un clin d'oeil" to Solfrid Cristin, it is should be pointed out that tiny Norway has two official varieties of the Norwegian language, the result of a nationalist movement. I highly recommend the Wikipedia entry here:
Norwegian language
Now, let's look at Africa. Yes, there are many ethnic (I prefer this term to tribal), conflicts. Yes, political independence has been relatively recent. Yes, most of the primary or indigenous languages are lexically underdeveloped and even until quite recently unwritten. Yes, the former colonial languages, English, Portuguese, Spanish and French are great languages of modern civilization.
But are these reasons sufficient for maintaining a status quo inherited from the colonial era? I argue no. Furthermore, I argue that these languages should be demoted to second languages--I'm not saying eliminated--and replaced as national languages by an indigenous or primary local language.
Since this post is becoming quite long already, I'll be very brief. A national language should be a language that the population (some parts grudgingly, of course) can identify with. This is the fundamental argument of linguistic nationalism. How can you identify with a language that was a vehicle of oppression, slavery and injustice? And furthermore, by retaining these colonial languages, one is always confronted with the dynamic of "proper" language, e.g. the French of France, and "bad" or local variety that inevitably develops. Thus, we see throughout all of Africa tiny elites that speak "good" language acquired in the best private schools or abroad. We also see the presence of large expatriate communities or international aid workers who use these languages.
What you also see everywhere is coexistence of localized varieties of these colonial languages and in fact a spectrum of usage from the highly eurocentric language of the elite to some sort of creolized or pidginized variety spoken by large sectors of the population.
In a previous post, I referred to two articles that spoke alarmingly about the decline of French in Senegal that was always considered the most francophile of all the francophone countries of Africa. What we are seeing is simply the rise of a national language (let's call in Senegalese) based on a majority language, Wolof. Of course, certain speakers of minority languages will complain. The expat community (from France, Canada and other countries) will be livid. My God, we will have to learn an African language! Some school teachers (of French) will complain. Others will jump on the bandwagon.
What is happening? I believe it's a combination of three phenomena. First, Wolof was already a dominant indigenous language and a lingua franca throughout all of Senegal. Second, there has been the rise of nationalist sentiment and national cultural identity. And third, an gradual detachment from France that has become increasingly more hostile to Africans in France. Put all of that together and you get exactly what was described in both articles: the mixing of Wolof with French even among the francophile elite and the increasing dominance of Wolof as a language of everyday communication in situations hitherto reserved for French.
When we speak of African languages, observers always insist on the large number of languages spoken in many countries. Over 200 hundred languages in Côte d'Ivoire. In fact, throughout all of Africa, there are either trade languages (e.g. Diula in Côte d'Ivoire), language families or even pidgins and creoles that facilitate intercommunication. Think for example of Kiswahili in much of East Africa. In today's world of increasing travel, commerce and communication, the trend towards some common language is inevitable within national borders. If an indigenous lingua franca is not immediately available, then a localized variety of a former colonial language could be an excellent solution. Although no countries have given official status to creolized languages (like Krio in Sierra Leone or Kreyol in Liberia), there is a similar dynamic everywhere of creation of indigenous varieties of the dominant language.
The advantages of having an indigenous or primary language as a national language are self-evident. It's the country's own language, the language of culture, the language of the majority. It's the mark of national identity. It changes the relationship between countries and especially between their speakers. Users are not being compared with those who speak "good" or "proper" language. Foreigners are expected to learn the local language and not impose their language.
There are situations where one may have multiple national languages reflecting social and political realities, but at least we are still talking about widely spoken local languages.
All the other questions of lack of writing systems, technical and scientific vocabulary and lack of standardization are mere technical issues. If Norway, a country of less than 6 million people, can survive with its own two varieties of a national language in today's world, and if Israel can make a nearly dead language, Hebrew, into a vibrant national language, Africa does not need these former colonial languages as national languages. Of course, they have a role as languages of international communication. As second languages. |
|
|
It's interesting that you should think that, s_allard, since it would without a doubt lead to the recession of your own maternal language, both in Africa and the world in general. But this is turning into a political discussion. I guess my questions to you would be: if they should use their national languages as official languages and languages of communication, why should they ever continue to use French, since English is more widespread in the world in general, and it is also present in other African countries. And do you think French will lose in Africa?
1 person has voted this message useful
| Rutabaga
Bilingual Pentaglot
Newbie
Romania
Joined 4931 days ago
27 posts - 46 votes
Speaks: English*, Slovenian*, French, German, Russian
Studies: Portuguese, Uzbek
| Message 55 of 135 12 November 2011 at 6:08pm | IP Logged |
Choosing a dominant indigenous language only works when there is one dominant indigenous language. Guinea threw out French under Sekou Toure and then eventually gave up on that experiment because it simply didn't work. There is no one dominant language in the country. And having three official languages is just impractical.
There is another advantage to keeping colonial languages, which is better access to outside information. Being educated in French opens more doors than being educated in Wolof, especially when one hits university. Think of how many more books are published in French than in Wolof (and even if Wolof were to become the only language of Senegal, this would not change). As access to education in francophone Africa improves, the number of French speakers will only increase.
4 persons have voted this message useful
| Haldor
Triglot
Senior Member
France
Joined 5619 days ago
103 posts - 122 votes
Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Swedish
Studies: French, Spanish
| Message 56 of 135 12 November 2011 at 7:17pm | IP Logged |
Rutabaga wrote:
Choosing a dominant indigenous language only works when there is one dominant indigenous language. Guinea threw out French under Sekou Toure and then eventually gave up on that experiment because it simply didn't work. There is no one dominant language in the country. And having three official languages is just impractical.
There is another advantage to keeping colonial languages, which is better access to outside information. Being educated in French opens more doors than being educated in Wolof, especially when one hits university. Think of how many more books are published in French than in Wolof (and even if Wolof were to become the only language of Senegal, this would not change). As access to education in francophone Africa improves, the number of French speakers will only increase. |
|
|
Absolutely true, since choosing one indigenous language will mean discriminating another, it is hard for the administrations in African countries to promote any particular national language.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.4219 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|
Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages
Printable version
