i
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA NSUKKA
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND
OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
MULTILINGUALISM IN NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION
A Project Report Presented in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree:
Masters of Arts (M.A) in Linguistics (Sociolinguistics)
BY
EZE, VICTORIA U.
PG/MA/05/40072
SUPERVISOR: DR. C.U. AGBEDO
AUGUST, 2010.
i
MULTILINGUALISM IN NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING
THE NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION
BY
EZE, VICTORIA U.
PG/MA/05/40072
SUPERVISOR: DR. C.U. AGBEDO
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND
OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
AUGUST, 2010
ii
APPROVAL PAGE
This is to certify that Eze Victoria U. who is a postgraduate student in the
Department of Linguistics, Igbo and Other Nigerian Languages, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka has satisfactorily completed courses and project work for the Degree of the
Master‟s of Arts (M.A.) in Linguistics.
DR. C.U. Agbedo Prof. C.N Okebalama .
Supervisor Head of Department
DATE: DATE: .
Prof. E.E. Okafor
Dean External Examiner
DATE: DATE:
A member of Postgraduate
Committee
DATE:
iii
DEDICATION
Wholly dedicated to the Almighty God.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
For the successful completion of this project, I am sincerely grateful to my
thesis supervisor, Dr. C.U. Agbedo, for the co-operation and pains he took in going
through the whole manuscript and offering valuable advice to improve it. May God
bless you abundantly.
Encouragement for this work came from many sources – lecturers, relations and
friends, to whom I now give sincere thanks. They include Prof. C.N. Okebalama, the
Head of Department, Department of Linguistics, Igbo and Other Nigerian Languages.
Mrs. Grace Prezi, Lecturer in the same department. May the Almighty God reward
them.
Finally, I will not forget to acknowledge the man that God has used to bless my
life, my beloved husband, Mr. G.O. Omeje a lecturer in the Department of Agricultural
Education, Federal College of Education, Eha-Amufu. He is always by side. May the
Almighty God preserve him.
Eze Victoria U.
Department of Linguistics, Igbo
and Other Nigerian Languages,
UNN.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................ i
APPROVAL PAGE ...................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION .............................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. v
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of Study ...................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the problem ................................................................ 3
1.3. Purpose of Study ............................................................................. 4
1.4. Significance of Study ...................................................................... 5
1.5. Scope and Limitation ...................................................................... 5
1.6. Research Questions ......................................................................... 6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theoretical Review………………………………...…………….. 7
2.2 Empirical studies ………………………………………………… 12
2.3 Language Policies in Multilingual Countries……………………. 17
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Design of the Study ........................................................................... 46
3.2 Area of Study .................................................................................... 46
3.3 Sampling and Sampling Procedures.................................................. 46
3.4 Instrument for Data Collection.......................................................... 47
3.5 Method of Data Analysis .................................................................. 48
3.6 Method of data analysis .................................................................... 48
3.7 Validation of Instrument ................................................................... 48
vi
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis ......................................................... 49
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary…………………………………………………….. ……. 64
5.2 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 64
5.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………. 66
REFERENCES
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE
vii
ABSTRACT
The main aims and objectives of this research were to identify the implications for
implementing the national policy on Education in multilingual countries with special
reference to the Nigeria situations. Theories of multilingualism and language planning
were discussed. Four research questions were formulated to guide the study. The
sample for the study consists of 200 respondents from ten purposively sampled schools
in the Nsukka Education Zone. The instrument used for the study was the
questionnaire. The data generated were analyzed using the mean of the responses of the
respondents. The result shows that there is no problem in the implementation of
language policy in a multilingual country like Nigeria. The result also shows that
multilingualism affects teaching and learning and general performance of students and
the educational system in Nigeria. Finally, the study identified that the use of mother
tongue/indigenous language should be chosen to enhance academic performances of
students and foster unity in Nigeria.
viii
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Multilingualism or bilingualism being a consequence of language contact has
been so sensitive that so many scholars have made some theoretical and critical
advances on the issues. There have been arguments that there is no such thing as total
monolingualism in any country, not even in countries like the U. S. A., France,
Germany etc, where there is only one official language used by the people.
Trugil (1985), says that multilingualism involves speaking more than one language
indigenously within a frontier. He stresses the fact that multilinguals is a case of the
existence of so many indigenous languages in a particular nation or frontier.
In their own study of multilingualism, Appel and Muyeken (1987) tried to
distinguish two types of multilingual. Individual multilingualism and societal
multilingualism. They describe societal multilingualism as that occurring in a given
society where two or more languages are spoken. Individual multilingualism, to them
is: the capability of using and understanding two or more languages. Bloomfield (1953)
adds to this, by looking at individual multilingual as: that person who possesses native-
like control of two or more languages.
Kloss (1969) came up with a third type of multilingualism known as impersonal
multilingualism. This is a sociolinguistic term he coined to refer to the phenomenon of
multilingual usage in the mass media. This gives the idea of special use of many
languages especially foreign language alongside the national language of a society.
This concept came up during Kloss‟s (1969b) study of the communicational pattern and
verbal strategies in Japan‟s mass media.
Kirsten (1991) holds that what is true of bilingualism holds true also for
multilingualism except where the context dictates otherwise. He goes on to describe a
multilingual society as one in which two or more languages are used by large groups of
the population. On the other hand, bilingualism is seen by Weinreich (1953) as “the
alternative use of two languages”.
Kristen (1991) still identified two situations of multilingualism in terms of
status: what he calls horizontal and diagonal multilingualism. He says that if the
languages spoken in a multilingual society have equal status in the official, cultural and
2
family life of the society, the situation is referred to as horizontal multilingualism.
Canada, to him is a typical horizontal multilingual country. Diagonal multilingualism
obtains only when one of the languages has official status. Tanzania is an example of a
diagonal multilingual country.
Pohl (1965) identifies what he calls vertical multilingualism. This is a case of
diglossia, but one thing is that this involves dialects of the same language rather than
different languages.
So far, we have looked at different aspects of multilingualism as defined by
various scholars, we shall now look at what the opinions of some of those scholars are
on the issue of multilingualism and national development.
Pool (1972), accounting for problems associated with language diversity in any
nation says:
Language diversity, it is claimed aggravates political
sectionalism, hinders inter-group co-operation, impedes
political enculturation, political support for the authorities,
holds down government effectiveness and political
stability.
From his view, we can deduce that he has nothing good or rather positive for
multilingualism. So, in a nation where linguistic differences are the major defining
characteristic for which each group is known. It is most likely that the problems
identified by Pool (1972) above will be very glearing. His observation is more on
political problems caused by the existence of many languages within a nation.
In her study of language diversity and national development in Europe,
Jyotrinda (1968) said that the early cases of political modernization and national
development in Europe, were by and large, based on fairly homogeneous language
communities. She says:
Their problem was mostly one of developing a standard language out of a welter of
variations among related codes.
Her conviction is that the early development in most European countries was
never disturbed by a multilingual situation as we have today in most developing
countries. This does not mean that European countries were purely homogenous. There
3
are really varieties used by various communities of Europe, but these varieties are not
such that should be termed different languages.
Jyotrinda (1968) maintained that: a disagreement of language policy may be
related to language diversity in the country concerned.
She is also of the opinion that when a state faces the problems of competing
languages that one responses to this problem may be to suppress this competition by
imposing one language on the others. From the study of multilingualism in Indonesia,
India, and Pakistan, Jyotrinda (1968) came up with the suggestion that the imposition of
one language on others may succeed in a language situation where competition
involves minimal political changes. Indonesia has a great diversity of languages, yet, it
was possible to impose the language of a small minority as the national language
because political competition of the regional languages for national status was low.
In the light of the views discussed above, a multilingual nation like Nigeria with
glaring language diversity riddled with the problems associated with it as identified by
Pool (1972) faces the big task of evolving an effective language policy and its
implementation in the National Policy on Education.
1.2 Statement of the problem
According to Wikipedia, it is expected, that subjects to successful
implementation a sizeable number of members of the Nigerian community, especially
young school leavers, would reflect the national bilingual or multilingual picture in
addition to English and possibly French, the former being the codes most used in the
country. But with the dearth of specialists in the three major codes, as well as in other
subjects, either at the primary or the secondary school level, it is very uncertain if the
majority of pupils would be able to learn more than one code. This is borne out by the
fact that the Federal Government College are socially privileged while public secondary
schools are less privileged.
Secondly, schools situated in the urban areas are more patronised than those in
the rural communities since the majority of the less privileged pupils are neither in that
Federal Government Colleges nor in the private schools. Small wonder that little or no
success is likely to be recorded in this domain. Added to the teething problems to be
envisaged is the considerable number of codes that pupils from minority linguistic
groups would be obliged to learn. This is likely to be burdensome on many pupils as
4
well of their parents. At the pre-school it is expected learn their mother tongue. This
would help them grow faster in the area of metalanguage and concept formation, a
significant advantage over teaching in a second code. This likelihood is remote.
Unfortunately, only the rich can afford to pay for their wards in the pre-primary school.
A critical analysis of our immediate environment forces us to admit that more parents
these days will even withdraw their children from the primary and secondary schools
when excessive expenditure is demanded.
Finally, at the primary level pupils are expected to learn initially in their mother
tongue or the code of their immediate community. However, judging by the huge
number of Nigerian linguists codes, estimated at close to 500, that could be used, it is
the opinion of linguistic such as Brann (1978), Elugbe and Omamor (1991), Marchese
and Schnukal (1982), Ofuani (1981) and Omamor (1982) that Analophone, extensively
spoken in the urban areas in the south could be developed and adopted as a national
code and also for the adult literacy programme, especially in multilingual states of the
country. In addition to this, some other semi-urban codes of less restricted
communication could be given equal status.
It should be reiterated that one‟s code is part of one‟s identity. Consequently, it
should not be denigrated. To do so invariably means denying one‟s human ability to
communicate. Hence the need to adopt a multilingual approach in solving Nigeria‟s
linguistic problems in public and social life. Far from being a plague, multilingualism in
the country is in fact a source of wealth and strength, which if properly harnessed and
managed will act as a source of synergy for a more effective, directed, guided as well as
vibrant evolution of a modern, economically viable and technologically developed
nation.
1.3 Purpose of Study
The aims and objectives of this research was to identify the implications for
implementing the national policy on Education in multilingual countries.
In a more simplified and clarified note, it is the objective of this research to:
1. Find out whether multilingualism affects the educational system in Nigeria?
2. Find out if the National Policy on Education is relevant in meeting the
problems of multilingualism in Nigeria?
5
3. Find out whether the use of the mother tongue aids learning and enhances
academic performance of students?
4. Find out the merits and demerits of multilingualism?
1.4 Significance of Study
This research will be very significant to educational planners, curriculum
designers and educational administrators in implementing the national policy on
education as it has to do with language policy and study in the educational system.
The research, when completed, and the findings made, will serve as a rich
resource material for researchers in related areas.
Teachers who are saddled with the onerous task of implementing the National
Policy on Education will find this study very valuable as it will expose the facts and
figures about multilingualism in Nigeria and the implications it has in implementing the
National Policy on Education.
Students studying Linguistics and other Nigerian Languages will find this work
useful as a reference material and valuable guide as it has thrown more light on the
problems of multilingualism on the educational system in the country, thus opening the
door for further researchers in the area
The findings of this research will create awareness and motivation to federal
and state governments to discharge their financial roles in the implementation of
language policy in education by carefully mapping out the stages that can be gradually
implemented and evaluated with minimum strains on the dwindling financial resources
of the government. This will involve giving due consideration to:
a. The production of text books, readers, instructional materials and other
gadgets and
b. The training and retraining of teachers on how best to implement the
National Policy on Education as it has to do with language policy. This will
impact very seriously on the use of the mother tongue in childhood
education for better academic performance.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
The research will cover the concepts of multilingualism and the problems in
Nigeria. It will also discuss some of the multilingual countries and their language
6
policies and the ways to encourage multilingualism. The research is also limited to
multilingualism and its positive and negative effects on our educational system.
This research will also examine what the National Policy on Education said
about language in Nigeria, the problem of implementing this policy and perhaps the
method to use in the implementation of these policies in order to meet the desired
objectives.
1.6 Research Questions
1. Does multilingualism affects the educational system in Nigeria?
2. Is the National Policy on Education relevant in meeting the problems of
multilingualism in Nigeria?
3. Does the use of mother tongue aids learning and enhance academic performance
of students?
4. What are the merits and demerits of multilingualism?
7
CHAPTER TWO
THEORETICAL REVIEW
A press issue in multilingual research is the need for work, that is grounded in,
or contributes to, the construction of elaborated theoretical outlooks. On the whole, a
great deal of bilingual and English-language learner literacy research has been
published without explicit reference, or with only incidental reference, to theory about
how multilingual literacy processes might function and develop, how they might be
similar to and different from monolingual literacy processes, and how learning and
using multiple languages might affect one‟s literacy (August & Hakuta, 1997;
Fitzgerald, 1995; Fitzgerald & Cummins, 1999; Garcia, 2000). There are notable
exceptions, such as Berhard‟s (1991, 2000) seminar work toward developing a theory
of second-language reading and Carrell Devine and Eskey‟s (1988) description of
second language reading of an interactive process.
The word theory is complicated to define. Researchers and philosophers who
hold different epistemological stances may attribute different meanings to it (Creswell,
2002; Hill, 1972; 1978). However, most educators and researchers in the social
sciences consider theory to be an inherent part of their work and press for it to be
explicit (Hill, 1977-1978). Theory can be defined as the formal or informal
identification of sets of variables, constructs, or principles and of hypothetical
explanations of relationships between and among those variables, constructs, or
principles. (Creswell, 2002, DeGroot, 1969; Kerlinger, 1965; Mitcheu & Myles, 1998;
Pedhazur & Schmekin, 1991).
For the purpose of this research work, I favour the General Factor Theory
Cronbach, 1970) which states that one generic set of language subprocesses are not
attached to a particular “mode” (reading, writing, listening speaking) as they are
learned. Rather, once a subprocess is learned, understanding is available for use in any
mode.
In a competing theoretical outlook called the Oral Precedence Theory, a
cornerstone tenet is that oral language understanding in the new language form the
bases for reading and writing processes and development in the new language.
8
Hypothetically, new language understanding would be first acquired and
learned in the specific modalities of listening and speaking, and these would then
provide a foundation for learning about reading and writing. Oral understanding in the
new language would become available for use and transfer to reading and writing in the
new language.
These competing theoretical outlooks have implications for whether and how
reading in the new language could begin in concert with listening and speaking in the
new language. According to the General Factor Theory, a student could learn about a
facet or process involved in the new language for example, about a syntactic structure
in the new language – first through listening and speaking, and then his or her
understanding could be used and manifested in reading and writing. It is equally
possible according to this theory that a student could learn about a syntactical structure
in the new language through reading and writing first and that understanding could then
be manifested later in listening and speaking. Conversely, according to the Oral
Precedence Theory, students should first develop some optimal level of oral proficiency
in the new language before learning to read and write it.
The present report consists of case studies of language planning in different
regions of the world. Two nations, relevant from a language planning stand point, have
been chosen from the five regions of the world as defined by UNESCO. The regions
and countries studied are as follows: In Africa: Burkina Faso and Tanzania, in the Arab
states: Morocco and Lebanon, in Asia and the pacific: Cambodia and India, in Europe
and North America: Finland and Spain, and in Latin America and the Caribbean:
Guatemala and Bolivia. The countries evaluated have been chosen because they present
complex linguistic situations. Since the evaluation has been limited to two countries per
region, a large number or interested cases have had to be excluded, but it is hoped that
the countries selected are as representative as possible. Language planning activities in
the countries in question have been evaluated with the help of existing literature and
information from experts in the field. The investigation has particularly focused on the
status and corpus of endogenous (indigenous) and endangered languages on the role of
the educational system in language planning.
Our initial reaction to the term “language planning” may be that it is an
unnecessary or even impossible activity. We perhaps look upon language as something
that cannot be planned we may ask ourselves why people cannot communicate with
9
each other as they have always done. The fact is that people cannot communicate with
each other today as they used to do in the past. Society is developing and language has
to adjust to reality. Political decisions are taken and this may means that new
communities are created which may lack a common means of communication. In cases
such as these, language planning is desirable and indeed necessary.
Language planning has been characterized by Bamgbose (1991:109), referring
to Fishman (1974:79), as “the organized pursuit of solution to language problems”.
Related Nations are “language cultivation”, “Language policy”, and “Language
politics”. In French literature, we find terms such as amusement linguistigue, gestation
linguistigue, planifcation linguistique, politique linguistigue. In English, less conscious
instances of language planning are sometimes designated as “language treatment”. The
“language problems” evoked in the quotation below could include such phenomena as
the lack of a common language in a politically defined unit, the absence of a writing
system, the lack of technical vocabulary, the shortage of school textbooks, and so on.
Presumably every multilingual political unit, in which some languages are stronger and
others are weather (which often means that the later are endangered), can be called a
linguistically problematic area. Even in monolingual nations, the insufficiency of the
national language in any domain has to be regarded as being a linguistic problem. In
fact, every region in the world where languages come into contact, such as through
invasion, migration, or the creation of new nations, is relevant in the context.
Bamgbose also raises the question of the classical division between “status
planning” and “corpus planning”, which he largely but not completely equates with
activities having to do with language policy and implementation respectively. In the
light of the above a discussion of terms, status planning would be equated merely with
language policy or language politics, whereas corpus planning largely overlaps with
language cultivation. Status planning, for example, involves the allocation of languages
to different societal domains, such as the official sphere, education, business, media etc.
The explicit proclamation of a language as the official medium of communication
naturally enhances its importance to a significant extent, but the introduction of a
particular language in schools, for example, can have far-reaching consequences.
According to Bamgbose (1991) corpus planning refers to such activities as the
production of grammars and dictionaries, the design of orthographies the choice of
script, spelling reforms, the production of primers and readers, etc.
10
In normal practice, a policy decision aimed at granting status to a given
language in a particular societal domain is first taken, and is then implemented in some
way, to the extent that some kind of concrete language material is produced. As
Bamgbose (1991:110) points out, policy making without implementation does not lead
to much progress, whereas implementation without policy decisions is difficult to
achieve (although Bamgbose observes that the lack of a policy in some countries has
worked to the advantage of linguists and missionaries who have been able to describe
and codify “exotic” languages without the intervention of the authorities). In fact,
Bangbose (1991 1:133) points out that “it would appear that there is a correlation
between the strength of a country‟s language policy and the nature of its
implementation machinery”.
A third distinction singled out by Banigbose is that of Noss (1971:25), who
observed that policies exist at three levels: official, educational, and general. Official
policy is concerned, with what language (s) is / are to be used at governmental level;
educational policy deals with the question of language use in different kinds of schools;
while general language policy refers to language use in mass communication, business
and contacts with foreigners (Bangbose 1991 : 111). Naturally, a country which
recognizes more than one language at the official level is already automatically
involved in far-reaching language planning. It should be noted, however, that many
countries do not mention explicitly in their constitution which official language (s) they
recognize. In such cases; as Garobaghi (1983: 1) points out, that the language in which
the constitution is drafted is to be considered the official language. Languages other
than the official one (s) are obviously often found in the educational system, let alone in
informal settings.
A final theoretical distinction originally suggested by Haugen (1974) is the
four-stage model for language planning: a norm is selected by modifying or creating a
variety; the norm is then codified (the orthography, pronunciation, grammar and
lexicon are established); its function is elaborated (For example, by coining the
necessary lexical items), and, last but not the least, its acceptance in the community is
ensured.
When it comes to the question of which language (s) to promote, Poth (1997:
17) reminds us of the following important parameters: the number of speakers, the
11
dialect variation, the degree of similarity with neighboring languages, the available
resources and the didactic coefficient.
This research will not be complete without mentioning the sociolinguistic
theory adopted for this work.
There are so many models in sociolinguistics but the one most suitable for this
research is the model of „Acts of Identity‟ propounded by Robert Le page and his
associates in Agbedo (2001). A basic tenet of this approach is that all linguistic
behaviour is stimulated by some social contexts or the other. The individual is
considered to be the locus of language behaviour along with the realization that
individual behaviour at any given moment is largely unpredictable. The individual is
also seen as an active and creative agent, constantly locating and relocating himself
within the multi-dimension linguistic environment through what le page refers to as
„projection‟ and „focusing‟. According to him assumes universal linguistic features but
for him, the individual manipulates these features in creating a social identity but he
creates his rules - - - so as to resemble as closely as possible those of the group or
groups with which, from time to time, he wishes to identify as constrained by a number
of factors. These include;
(a) The extent to which he is able to identify his model groups.
(b) The extent to which he has sufficient access to those model groups and
sufficient analytic ability to work out the rules of their behaviour.
(c) The strength of various motivations towards one or another model and towards
retaining his sense of his own unique identity.
(d) His ability to modify his behaviour.
In conclusion, when we compare the theory of multilingualism and the theory
on sociolinguistics, we found out that, they are all discussing almost the same thing i.e.
discussing individuals, their languages and the society they live in. Each and every one
of them has a role to play in the life of one another, in order to function well in the
society.
12
2.2 EMPIRICAL STUDIES
An individual who is competent in two languages must keep them more or less
separate in language production and reception. How can this be achieved in such a way
that when one language is „on‟ the other is „off.‟ Penfield and Roberts (1959) proposed
a theory which is known as the single – switch theory to account for this phenomenon;
it assumed one mental device, a „switch‟ which operated in such a way that when one
language was on, the other was off. Apart from the problem of the neutral status of such
a device, (the switch was still not more than a metaphor for an unknown device in the
brain) results of experiments using the bilingual version of the stroop procedure showed
that this theory was too simple. Subjects had to respond (i.e., name colour words) in
one language, so that system must be „on‟ but the printed words in the other language
still distracted the subjects and therefore this system was „on‟ too. These findings are in
agreement with the common-sense observation that bilinguals are quite capable of
speaking one language while listening to someone else speaking another language.
These facts can be accounted for in a theory in which two switches are
hypothesized: an output switch and an input switch (Macnamara, 1967). The speaker is
in control of the output switch, choosing a certain language deliberately. But as the
results of the bilingual stroop test show, that he cannot control the input switch in the
same way: subjects were not able to filter out the language of the distracting word. The
input switch is therefore said to be „data‟ driven; the language signal from the outside
operated the switch, whether the bilingual wants it or not.
If these input and output switches really exist, their operation should require time,
like any other mental operation. Various studies were taken to see whether this is so.
For instance Kolers (1966) asked French English bilinguals to read aloud monolingual
and mixed French English passages. The subjects answered comprehension questions
equally well for monolingual and bilingual texts, but the reading aloud of mixed
passages took considerably more time Kolers computed that each switch took them
between 0.3 and 0.5 second. Reacting critically to this early study, other researchers
suggested that Kolers had not differentiated between the input and output switch.
Reading aloud requires both receptive and productive language processing Macnamara
et al, (1968) isolated the output switch in an experiment in which bilinguals had to
write numerals, i.e linguistically neutral stimuli; first in one language, then in the other
13
and then alternating between the two languages. It was found that the task required
more time in the last condition, when the output switch was involved. Each switch took
about 0.2 second.
In a subsequent study, Macnamara and Kushnir (1971) looked at the input switch
separately in a relatively simple experiment. They asked bilinguals to read monolingual
and bilingual passages silently. The subjects read the monolingual passages faster than
the bilingual passages, and each switch took about 0.17 second.
The two switch model appeared to find rather strong support in the various studies.
Even the computation times corresponded neatly. Kolers 0.3 to 0.5 second for input
plus output switch was approximately the same as the 0.2 second for the output switch
and 0.17 seconds for the input switch founded by Macnamara and his colleagues. The
value of the two switch model was later seriously questioned, however on the basis of
observations of natural – code switching in bilingual and new the research result.
Many bilinguals switch from one language to the other in their daily interaction.
This form of code – switching takes place between sentences as well as within
sentences.
Studies which took the structural constraints on switching into account yielded
quite different results. For instance, Chan et al (1983) asked Chinese – English
bilinguals to read a passage with spontaneous or natural switches, and compared the
reading speed with that of a monolingual Chinese passage. They found no differences
between the reading speed for the two conditions. This result supported Paradis‟s
contention that bilinguals do not use a special switching mechanism different from the
mechanism monolinguals employ in language processing. According to Paradis‟s (1977
114), there is no need to hypothesize any special anatomical structure or function in the
brain of the bilingual as different from the monolingual.
The same general neural mechanism that makes a speaker select /k/ and not /t/
in a given context can account for the selection of case instead of from age: with regard
to input, bilinguals have no problem with switches when they can anticipate them. If
not, it takes some time to adjust to the „new‟ code, but this is the same for the
monolingual who needs some extra time for processing a sentence, if he is not
expecting that he will be addressed and suddenly some body asks him a question.
One aspect of bilingual language usage that we will touch upon only briefly is
translation ability. Contrary to expectation, it turns out that bilinguals who are very
14
proficient in both languages are not always good translators. Lambert, Havelka and
Gardner (1959) asked English – French bilinguals to translate lists of English and
French words the speed of translation did not correlate with the subject degree of
bilingualism probably, because bilinguals use their two languages in different domains
of their life.
They are connected to different cultural experiences. If a bilingual speaker
always uses language (A) in informal, and language (B) in formal setting, it will be
difficult to translate a passage referring to experiences in informal setting from
language (A) into language (B). It might take some extra time to find „the right words‟
for these words generally do not come up in the situation in which (B) is spoken.
In using language, Herbert Clark proposed a broadly integrative theory of
language and action, in his book, he examines both the social and cognitive aspects of
language use, drawing from speech act theory by (Austin 1965; Searle 1965; Allen
1980), theories of discourse and dialogue (Reichman 1985; Grosz and Sider 1990), and
theories of social interaction (Goffman 1970; Brown and Levison 1987; Sacks,
Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). In order to integrate these different perspectives, the
book relies on empirical research by Clark and his students over the last fifteen years.
Clark began the work with an overview of its‟ central thesis that “language use
is really a form of joint action” i.e, action carried out by ensemble of people acting in
coordination with one another. As a joint activity, conversation consists of a joint
action and the individual action by the conversational participants that constitute the
joint action (Bruce 1975; power, 1974; Clark and Carlson 1982; Cohen and Levesque
1991; Gross and Sidner 1990). Joint activities require coordination of both the content
of the activity and the process by which the activity moves forward. The source of
conversants, ability to coordinate is their common ground, the set of knowledge, beliefs
and suppositions that they believe they share (Stalnaker 1978; Clark and Marshall
1981; Prince 1981). Common ground makes it possible for a speaker and a hearer to
coordinate on what the speaker means and what the hearer understands the speaker to
mean. these core ideas are expanded and elaborated.
One core claim is that communicative acts are the primitive- level actions that
all joint activities consist of. Speaker and hearers coordinate the production and
interpretation of communicative acts through the mediation of a signaling system
(Schilling 1960; Lewis 1969). The signs of the signaling system and their interpretation
15
are often defined by convention, but the signal and its‟ interpretation can also rely on
the speaker‟s and heare common ground. Conversants accumulate common ground
with joint signaling events, which move the conversants from one state of the
conversation to the next. At the utterance level, each joint signaling event includes a
presentation phase, in which the initiator presents a contribution, and an acceptance
phase, in which the other conversants indicate a degree to which they understand and
accept or reject that contribution. Conversants try to manage the production and
interpretation of communicative acts with the least collaborative effort, i.e., with the
smallest cumulative effort of the speaker and hearer combined. Since signaling systems
encompass all types of signs, not merely those signaled by purely linguistic means,
conversation can use any of a complex set of signals, such as facial expressions,
gesture, speech, and shared awareness of actions and objects in a shared environment
(Brennan 1990).
A second core claim is that dialogue has a layer of structure above the level of
communicative acts. The conversants base their interpretation of each utterance level
act on the assumption that each utterance level signaling event contributes to another
joint action, namely some structured purpose, which defines a larger joint activity (goal
or plan) at the discourse level (Bruce 1975; Power 1974; Allen and Perrault 1980;
Litman 1985). At the discourse level, each joint signaling event consists of individual
segments, or section in Clark‟s terminology. A transition between two sections and
another depends on a set of relations that can hold between sections, such as another
being subsequent to some other being a part of the other.
Computational linguists who read this study will notice that these core ideas are
consistent in many ways with commonly assumed planning model of dialogue in
computational linguistics. While Clark does not always make clear the relationship
between his proposals and work in computational linguistics, many researchers in
computational linguistics have used these ideas within computational frame works that
are more precise and testable. Clark argues that his perspective is inconsistent with
planning models of dialogue, but Clark‟s view of planning mechanisms appears to
reflect the state of the art circa 1971, when STRIPS was first proposed (Fikes and
Nilsson 1971). He rejects all models based on planning because “people ----------don‟t
know in advance what they will actually do (because) they cannot get any thing doing
without the other joining them, and they cannot know in advance what the other will
16
do”(P.319). However, it is not beyond the ability of current planning and control
mechanisms to respond dynamically to a change in the environment or an unpredictable
response by a conversational partner (Barto, Bradtke, and Singh 1995) Further more,
plan–revision mechanisms have been successfully used to model these phenomena
(Cawsey 1993; Carletta 1992).
An additional thread that Clark integrate into his account is the effect of social
relationships on language production and interpretation. Following Goffman (1970),
and Brown and Levinson (1987), Clark claims that the production of each utterance
level signaling event is governed by a set of social constraints that derive from the
social situation in which the conver station is carried out and the social relationship
that holds between the conversant. These theories claim it is primarily the orientation to
social constraints that leads to many indirect forms of communicative acts.
The use of planning representations in the interpretation of these indirect speech
acts has been the focus of much work on computational linguistics (Perrault and Allen
1980, Litman 1985; Mcroy and Hirst (1995), but these theories have had little impact
on models of language production used in computational linguistics (with the exception
of models reported by Hovy (1990) and Walker, Calm, and Whittaker (1997).
Thus, Clark provides a view of language use that integrates a number of
perspectives, many of which have (individual) already been influential in
computational linguistics. The integrative model that Clark presents has manly
complexities, but the book is accessible to readers with little or no back ground.
The claims are nicely illustrated with excerpts from naturally occurring
dialogues and backed up by empirical research by Clark and his students. What is most
remarkable about this book is the degree to which it reflects the convergence of various
branches of discourse and dialogue theory on set of common models based on
theoretical perspectives in linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociolinguistics and
computational linguistics. As a result, although the book is not written for computation
audience, it should be of interest to computational linguists studying language as a
means of acting in the world described as bilingual or multilingual. In the first situation,
the two or more languages spoken by two different groups and each group is
monolingual, a few bilingual individuals take care of the necessary inter-group
communication as is the case in ex-colonial countries where the colonialists and a few
neo-colonialist elite spoke the colonial master‟s language while the indigenous people
17
spoke the local language. In societies of the second type, all people are bilinguals.
Approximations to such a form of societal bilingualism can be found in Africa
countries and India where people speak more than two languages. In the third form of
societal bilingual, one group is monolingual, and the other bilingual. In most cases, this
last group will form a minority perhaps not in the numerical or statistical sense, but
rather in the sociological sense. This situation, Appel and Muysken further note, is
typical of what obtains in Greeland, where the people who speak Greenlandic Inuit
must be bilingual, i.e. learn Dannish, while Dannish speaking group, which is
sociologically dominant, can remain monolingual.
This notwithstanding, those types of bilingual societies are more of theoretical
forms, which in reality do not exist in a pure form in the practical world of our
contemporary times. As Appel and Muysken observe, different mixtures are much
more common, given that the linguistic situations of most countries is far more
complex, with more than two groups and more than two languages involved.
2.3 LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MULTILINGUAL COUNTRIES
Agbedo (2007) said that many nations historically have used language policies
most often to promote one official language at the expense of others, many countries
now have policies designed to protect and promote regional and ethnic languages
whose viability is threatened. Language policy is what a government does either
officially through legislation, court decision policy to determine how language are used,
cultivate language skills needed to meet national priorities or to establish the rights of
individuals or groups to used and maintain languages. The preservation of cultural and
linguistic diversity in today‟s world is a major concern to many scientists, artists,
writers, politicians, and leaders of linguistic communities. Up to one half of the 6000
languages currently spoken in the world are estimated to be in danger of disappearing
during the 21st century. Many factors affect the existence and usage of any given
human language, including the size of the natives speaking population, its use in formal
communication, geographical dispersion and the socio-economic standing of its
speakers. National language policies can either mitigate or exacerbate the effects of
some of these factors. Language policy laws can be categorized in a number of ways
such as the following: assimilation policies, non-intervention policies, differentiated
legal statute policies, vocalarization of the official languages policies (unilingualism),
18
bilingual or trilingual policies, strategic multilingualism policies, linguistic
internationalization policies.
According to him, a policy of assimilation is one that uses measures to
accelerate the downsizing of one or more linguistic minority group(s). The ultimate
goal of such policies is to foster national unity inside a state (based on the idea that a
single language in the country will favour that end. It is based on the belief that every
person in a given society should be able to function in the dominant language regardless
of which language that person speaks. Countries that have such policies include
Afghanistan, Burma, Indonesian, Iran, Iraq, Kosovo (United Nations Protectorate),
Pakistan, Syria, Thailand, Vietnam. A policy of non-intervention consists in choosing
to allow the normal rapport between, the main linguistic group and the minorities
evolve on it own. This almost invariably favours the dominant group. Sometimes such
policies are accompanied by administrative measures protecting certain minorities.
Such policies exist in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chile, Congo-Kinshasa, Cote d‟Ivoire, Cuba, Czech
Republic, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Germany,
Gibraltar, Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, El Salvador, San Marino,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vermont.
Agbedo (2007) differentiates legal statute policy and recognizes a different legal
statute for a given language usually aims at allowing the coexistence of multiple
linguistic groups inside a state. Typically, the majority has all its linguistic rights
secured and sometimes promoted while the minority or minorities are given special
protection for their language. Countries that have this type of policy include Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, California, China, Croatia, Estonia, European
Council, Republic of Macedonia, Guatemala, Latvia, Lithuania, Manitoba, Ontario,
Netherlands, New Mexico, Paraguay Quebec, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
Sweden, Wales, Yukon, Unilingualism, as a policy favours one official language.
Sometimes, it favours the (or a) national language, sometimes it favours a colonial
language with a strong influence internationally. In some cases, such policies are
accompanied by measures recognizing and protecting minority languages or indigenous
languages. This approach may be considered in two broadly different types of
situations: where the official language is also the first language of the majority of the
19
population, and where it is not. Such countries where this policy is adopted include
Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Cyprus, Croatia,
East Timor, Egypt, Estonia, Franca, India, Iran, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait,
Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Madagascar, Morocco, Mexico,
Moldova, Montenegro, North Korea, Nepal, Peru, Republic of Philippines, Poland,
Quebec, Saint Pierre and Mongolia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Korea, Sri
Lanka, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Voivodine.
There are many ways in which these policies can be applied. It could be based
on non-territorialized individual rights or territorialized individual rights. A policy of
bilingualism based on non-territorialized individual rights recognizes the same right to
all members of a community/territory. This is practised in the following countries.
Belarus, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Tchad, Djibouti, Guinea, Hong
Kong, Ireland, Kenya, Kiribati, Matta, Nauru, New Brunswick, New Zealand,
Northwest Territories, Norway Nunavut, Rwanda, Samoa, South Africa, Tanzania ,
Tonga, Tuvalu. A language policy based on territorialized individual rights recognizes
the same rights for all members of a community within a specific region. This is the
traditional practice in the Acosta Valley, the Balearic Islands, Basque Country.
Brandenburg, Brittany, Catatonia, Channel Islands, Corsica, Faeroe, Finland, Fruili,
Venezuela Giuliani, Galicia, Haiwan, Isle of Man, Microriesia, Navarre, Northern
Ireland, Nicaragua, The Philippines, etc. A policy of this type based on territorial rights
is practised in Belgium, Cameroon, Frisqourg, Grison, Switzerland, Tioino, Valais. A
policy of multilingualism based on non-territorialized individual rights recognizes the
same rights for all members of a community whatever their location in the national
territory. This is the policy adopted and practiced in Singapore in linguistic
internationalization policies. We have the linguistic policies where both local and
international languages are recognised as official.
Another way of looking at language policy is Fishman (1971) cited in Agbedo
(2000) which recognizes three types labelled A, B and C. According to Agbedo
(2000:192), all the three types linger on the notion of a Great Tradition and its
relationship to the twin goals of nationalise and nationalism. Fishman (1971) defined
the great tradition as the assumed existence of a set of cultural features-law,
government, religion, history, which are shared by the nation and can serve to integrate
the members of the State into a cohesive body. Such a Great Tradition usually has as
20
one of its manifestations and its major vehicles of expression, a language, which very
often is the appropriate choice for adoption as the national language or official
language. The existence or non-existence of a Great Tradition in a given nation state
determines which of the policy types to adopt. The type A policy is adopted in a nation-
states where the ruling elite is of the opinion that there is no Great Tradition, hence the
option of creating an exoglassic state by adopting the language of the ex-colonial
masters. This is usually the preferred option in linguistically heterogeneous countries
such as Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, etc. Type B policy is adopted in endoglossic countries
where the elite acknowledge the existence of a Great Tradition with a related language
of expression. This is the typical case in Israel, Somalia, USA, France, UK, Spain,
Australia, New Zealand, etc. Type C policy is adopted in mixed States, which as
Agbedo (193) observes, “…….recognizes the existence of several competing Great
Traditions, each with its own social, religions or geographical base and linguistic
traditions”. This situation is most typical of Common Wealth-Asia, specifically India
where Hindi is the National and Official Language. (NOL) with English as a subsidiary
Official Language (OL) and fourteen indigenous languages as Regional Official
Languages (ROL).
We also note typical ideologies described by Cobarrubias (1983), which may
motivate decision making in language planning in a given society. These as listed by
Agbedo quoting Cobarrubias include the ideologies of linguistic assimilation, linguistic
pluralism, vernacularization, internationalization, linguistic assimilation ideology
derives from the belief that everyone, regardless of origin should learn the dominant
language of the society. This is the ideology, which informed USA‟s melting-pot policy
that adopted the WASP core cultural consensus and English as its language of
expression. The same goes for French in France, Portuguese in Portal, Spanish in Spain
and indeed all endoglossic states. Linguistic pluralism ideology derives from the
recognition of more than one language, English/French in Canada, Afrikaans/English in
South Africa, Finnish/Swedish in Finland, etc. Vernaculanzation ideology derives from
the modernization and standardization of an indigenous language and its adoption as an
official language, for example, Neo-Melanesian in Papua New Guinca, Swahili in
Tancania, Kenya, Uganda, Quechua in Peru, Tagalog in the Philippines. Hebrew in
Isreal. Turk in Turkey. Internationalism as an ideology refers to the adoption of a non-
21
indigenous language of wider communication as an official language, for instance,
English in Nigeria, Ghana, India, Sierra Leone etc.
In a review of language policy and planning research reminiscent of Cobarruba
(1983), Galdino reports that Reichnan (1985) identify current interest in examining how
language policies serve as mechanisms of social control by dominant elites and also
stress how all policies are ideological in nature although the ideology may not be
apparent or acknowledged. Tollefson (1995) also discusses how language policies at all
levels reflect relations of unequal power and that language policies are both outcomes
of and sites for power struggles. Among other contributions to language policy analysis
is Ocha (1995) who presents a five-step typology that contructed a continuum from
subtractive to additive bilingual education policies. He describes the prevailing
practices in the United States as “Traditional bilingualism” operating under an
assimilationist ideology. Another contributor, Schmidt (1997) describes the three
positions of linguistic pluralism (advocating acceptance and respect for linguistic
diversity along with the right to non-discrimination on the basis of language and the
right to ethnolinguistic – cultural reproduction). Linguistic assimilationist (language
loss in the name of socio-economic “advancement”) and “Latino nationalist” (creation
of Spanish dominant language domains within the U.S.) in current debates surrounding
language policy that affects Latino.
In the countries of Africa, most of which are multilingual, the issue of language
policy with reference to language choice in education is fundamental to any discussion
of the role education plays in all facets of development in this continent.
Before the advent of European colonialism, the history of language policy in
Africa started with the introduction of Islam in parts of North, West and East Africa,
where Muslim communities emerged with basic literacy and higher education in
Arabic. But it was during European colonial rule that definite language policies were
enunciated for the first time, with far-reaching consequences for the educational,
literacy, linguistic, economic and cultural development of modern African countries.
Various, and often divergent, language policies were introduced by the Portuguese,
French, Spanish and British colonial powers. There was also the case of South Africa,
where the ruling Afrikaner nationalist party enforced a language policy that was aimed
at developing their language as the lingua Franca, language of education and culture,
and a strong competitor with English.
22
Each colonial power had its own cultural and political standpoint that gave rise
to its particular brand of language policy. There were often conflicting approaches to
language policy, because the European missionaries, government officials and settlers
had divergent opinions on how to deal African colonial subjects.
Wikipedia factors that have influenced language policies include the attitudes of
the colonial administration and the African government after independence, the
multilingual (or monolingual) nature of each country, the level of development of its
languages as vehicles of modern communication and the desire to acquire a modern
technological culture. African multilingualism. Africa is the most complex multilingual
part of the world in terms of numbers of languages, the sizes of the communities
speaking them, and the area each language covers (Alexander, 1972). The problem of
delineating languages and dialects, and the variation of names of languages, makes it
difficult to estimate the actual numbers of language in Africa. Ki-zero (1981) attributes
the presence of so many languages to the sparseness of population. He says:
The very vastness of the African continent, with a diluted and
therefore itinerant population living in a nature at once generous
with fruits and minerals, but cruel with its endemic and
epidemic diseases, prevented it from reaching the threshold of
demographic concentration which has always been one of the
preconditions of major qualitative changes in the social,
political and economic spheres.
Despite the complex nature of this multilingualism, a continuum of
communication networks existed through social, economic and military contacts. This
facilitated communication and developed individuals with multilingual abilities.
From Wikipedia we know that the scramble for Africa and its eventual arbitrary
partition created geographical entities that completely ignored ethnolinguistic realities
in most cases. At one extreme, for example, are relatively small areas such as
Cameroon with more than 100 languages, while at the other extreme there are countries
with one predominant mother tongue, such as Botswana, Burundi, Lesotho, Rwanda,
Somalia, and Swaziland. However, even in these countries, individuals are likely to be
multilingual, often speaking at least one African and a European language.
23
Before the advent of colonial rule, there were no apparent language policies
except in areas dominated by Islam or, in the case of Ethiopia by coptic Christianity. In
the Muslim areas in Africa, followers of this religion were expected to acquire basic
literacy in Arabic enable them recite the Koran and other important religious texts.
Areas of the Sahel in West Africa covering such countries as, Burkina Faso, Mali,
Northern Nigeria and Senegal are cases in point, while in East Africa, Islam had spread
to the whole coast of East Africa as early as the tenth century A. D. However, the
Arabic language did not gain a foothold as there were very few Arabic-speaking
settlers. Islam was spread in these countries by the first few African converts who were
often chiefs of their areas. The introduction to the Arabic script nonetheless enabled
these Muslims to develop literates‟ traditions in their own African Languages. We have,
therefore, languages such as Fulani, Hausa, Somali, Swahili, Wolof and Yoruba with
relatively extensively literatures using the Arabic script Swahili, for example,
developed epic, religious and popular poetry in previous centuries.
The language was used as an official language of the court as Swahili letters
from the Sultan of Kilwa on the Tanzanian coast to the Portuguese Governor-General in
Goa in the seventeenth century attest. Language policy in such Muslim areas then was
to learn sufficient Arabic to recite the sacred books and to have adequate mastery of
their own African language to be able to understand the translations of Arabic religious
texts and Islamic jurisprudence. A few educated scholars would also learn and master
the Arabic language, and there are many classical works written by African scholars in
the Arabic language. Of course, the broad masses had no working knowledge of this
language, even though they might be bilingual or multilingual in African languages.
Colonial administration: It was during colonial rule that we see the emergence of
definite language policies. Different colonial powers tended to have their own language
policy as part of the ethos of their imperial attitudes. The Germans, the British and the
Dutch favour the use of African vernaculars or lingua franca as media of education at
the lower levels of education and administration.
The missionaries of those countries devised orthographies, and wrote grammars
and dictionaries from African languages, as a step towards developing literacy in
indigenous languages. The objective was to teach the Bible and other religious texts in
the mother tongue, as this was considered the correct way to impart the message of
24
God. We see in the areas ruled by these powers therefore, a development of a literate
tradition in the Roman script.
Brann (1982) has interesting views on language policies in Africa. He noted that
the Germanic races, including the German, British and Dutch, held a more protestant
view of peoples and their individualistic languages and cultures, while the Romance
colonial powers the French, Portuguese, Hawaiians and Spanish- had a more „Catholic‟
attitude in their outlook, going back to the period of the Roman Empire.
The colonial policy of the French tallied with their own policy at home, where
language was developed as a means of nation-building in the reign of Franco in the
sixteenth century and onwards. In the seventeenth century, the French Academy was
inaugurated with the aim of providing a unified language to a country that still spoke
many dialects and of encouraging the growth of a high culture through a normative
form of standard French. French language policy in Africa was promoted by the
Alliance Francoise (originally called Alliance pour la propagation e la purification de la
language Françoise). The French were concerned that pidginized forms of French
should not emerge in their colonies and that in the colonies only metropolitan. French
as spoken at home must be taught and promoted. The British, for example, recognized
the existence of English-based creoles and pidgins, while the French for long time
refused similar recognition.
In the belief that French was the most cultured language, and had a civilizing
mission, French colonial language policy discouraged research into or development of
African languages. French was to be the only official language of administration,
education and culture. As a consequence, African languages in areas governed by the
French were the least developed, if developed at all, at independence. Most of these
language had not even acquired orthographical system, despite the well-known fact that
these language were the true vehicle of communication among Africans. There was a
deceptive assumption on the part of the French that all education from the nursery to the
University was entirely conducted in French, an impossible situation, since there were
neither adequate teachers nor materials for such a comprehensive policy.
In Madagascar, the French implemented the provisions of the Brazzaville
Conference of 1945, which aimed at the assimilation programme of „education in
French only‟. Malagasy reappeared in 1955 but was taught as a foreign language, like
English.
25
From Wikipedia we learn that the Portuguese had an even more intolerant
policy towards African languages. On the basis of their political stand that the overseas
territories of Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde were an inalienable
part of metropolitan Portugal. They took stern measures to ensure that no African
languages were promoted. They went as far as punishing missionaries who used
African languages in education. The direct result was that at independence Portuguese
had to be accepted as the official and national language of these countries by African
governments, as there was no alternative.
The Germans, in their East-African territories up to the end of the First World
War, had a policy of promoting Swahili as the lingua franca. In the then Tanganyika,
both German and African civil servants and members of the armed forces had to know
Swahili to be employed, a fact which rapidly helped the spread of this language. Also,
German missionary scholars such as Rebmann, Krapf and Buttner wrote grammas of
Swahili and collected manuscripts in Swahili Arabic Script of pre-twentieth century
classical literature which are still to be found in the libraries of the University of Berlin,
Hamburg and Leipzig.
From Wikipedia we learn that German missionaries opened schools every where
and worked on the development of orthographies and texts in Tanzanian languages. The
same is true in parts of British-ruled Africa such as Zambia (Central Africa), where
Chibemba was developed, Zimbabwe (Shona and Nedbele) and Malawi (Chichewa). It
can be said that as a result of the German and British colonial language policies, all
major African languages were fairly developed, and widely used in the education
system and administration. There is also a rich tradition of academic research on
African languages by German and British scholars in their universities.
The Germans, the Belgians (in Ruanda Burundi) and the British encouraged the
growth of multilingualism in Africa languages and bilingualism in Africa Lingua
Franca and their European languages. Language policies in education differed,
depending on the lobbies at work. The general pattern however, was the use of local
languages up to elementary class three as the medium of instruction, and then, if there
was a developed lingua franca such as Swahili and Hausa, that would take over for
another two or three years, after which English would continue as the medium. English
would be taught as a subject right from the start. The colonial German government had
also participated in the building of schools, requiring that indigenous people must be
26
taught Swahili and Arithmetic in order to produce clerks, craftsman and skilled manual
workers. German colonial officers too were compelled to learn Swahili and other
African languages before they were sent to Africa. Facilities for the study of Swahili
were created in certain German universities.
The British in Tanganyika continued to encourage the teaching of Swahili and
other African languages when that country was mandated to them after the first World
War. It was such positive action by the German and British rulers that made Swahili
emerge as a candidate to be the national/official language of the United Republic of
Tanzania.
From Wekipedia we know that the British followed similar policies in West
Africa, encouraging the development and use of African languages and lingua franca.
Thus, we see such languages as Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo and many others in Nigeria well
developed at independence. In Kenya, with a politically strong settler community, there
were three groups influencing language policy. The missionaries wanted to develop the
vernacular languages, of which there are over forty, for the purpose of elementary
education and catechism. The settlers favoured Swahili and the vernaculars, while
British civil servants saw the introduction of English as early as possible in the
education system as the best way of ensuring African progress. Eventually, in the
1930s, mother tongues were used in lower primary education. Swahili was introduced
in the intermediate levels, and English took over in the upper primary and higher stages.
But by the 1950s the policy was to used English right from nursery school as medium
of instruction. Ethiopia and Somalia: Ethiopia is the African country with the shortest
period of European colonization. It also has an abundance of indigenous written records
of its history, literature and sacred texts using an indigenous script (Bender et al., 1976).
The Aksum Kingdom in the fourth century A. D. used Ge‟ez, the ancient classical
language as the official language of administration. Ge‟ez also became the church
language. Ethiopia is multilingual and multiethnic, According to Bender et al (1976)
there are about a dozen Semitic languages, twenty-two Cushitic, eighteen Omotic and
eighteen Nilo-Saharan, English, French and Italian have been the vehicles of
introducing Western culture and the media of higher education in this country, Italian
and French have been gradually replaced by English, while Arabic serves as a lingua
franca among Muslim Ethiopians, and is used as the language of religious teaching.
Eritrea was Federated to Ethiopia in 1952, its official languages having been Arabic and
27
Tigririnya. However, the revised constitution of Ethiopia (Proclamation 149 of 1955,
Article 125) declared Amharic as the only national official language of the whole
empire (Abdulaaziz, 1991). Other Ethiopia languages were completely suppressed, a
fact that led to a great deal of resentment. With the overthrow of Haile Selassie and the
advert of the Marxist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam, the language policy was
radically changed. The policy now was to recognize the linguistic, cultural and social
rights of all nationalities, Article 5 of the 1974 National Democratic Revolution
programme of Socialist Ethiopia States: within the envious of nationality, each
nationality has the right to determine its political, economic, and social life, and use its
own language.
Somalia is one of the most homogenous areas of African in terms of ethnicity,
language, culture and religion. Throughout this country the Somali language has been
in contact with Italian, Arabic and English. Contact with Islam and Arabic goes back
many centuries. During colonial rule English was used as the official language and
language of education in the North while Italian prevailed in the south of the country,
including the capital Mogadishu. With the Egyptian revolution of 1952 and the pan-
Arab/pan-Islam and pan-African policies of Nasser, Arabic was introduced in a very big
way in Somalia, Arabic primary and secondary schools were opened in large numbers.
Tertiary education in Arabic was also introduced and there was a major programme of
scholarship awards for Somali students to study in Egypt. All this resulted in the Arabic
language becoming a strong second language and later the acceptance of Somali as an
Arab country.
During colonial rule, the Italian government completely ignored the Somali
language and used Italian for all official and educational purposes. Very few Somali
could enter primary and secondary schools, which were mostly for Italian and mulattos.
During the United Nations trusteeship period of 1950-1960, however, the Italian
government made a commitment to provide education of good quality that would
prepare Somalis for independence in the Southern part. English continued as the official
language of education in the North.
At independence, when the two parts were joined, there was a curious linguistic
dilemma. The North had English while the South had Italian as the official make
languages, and Somali had become the common language of oral communication in all
aspects of political, economic and cultural life of the country. Somali, up to this stage,
28
had no official written system. There was a passionate national debate as to whether
Somalia should adopt the Arabic or the Roman, or should devise an indigenous script.
This wrangling delayed the introduction of Somali Revolutionary Council which under
Siad Barre declared that henceforth the Roman script would be used as the official
orthography (Latin, 1977), Sino then, the Somali Language Academy has done
tremendous work to develop Somali as a working national official language. At present,
Somali is used as the only medium in primary and secondary schools, making it the
only country in sub-Sahara Africa to provide secondary education in the indigenous
language. Afrikaner linguistic nationalism from about 1875. The policy was to develop
Afrikaner into a modern language of literature and technology, and also as the official
language of at least the Afrikaner community. The South African Banta Act of 1953
created the apartheid policy of separate development, under which the African would
live in their own specified areas. In the beginning, the policy was to encourage the use
of mother tongues as media of instruction for subjects in the primary and secondary
schools, as means of consolidating the linguistic and cultural apartheid. This never quite
worked, as will been seen below. Later, in the 1950s, there was a deliberate policy of
teaching Afrikaans in all African schools. The Banta homelands were considered as an
Afrikaner backyard, not to be exposed to English or other languages. Later, the Black
consciousness movement led by Steve Biko insisted on reversing this policy in favour
of English.
In an attempt to take a global view of Nigeria‟s language problem. It would not
be wrong to conclude, in the light of Simpson‟s observation that such attempts are
extremely few. Simpson has observed that Nigeria intellectuals who feel there should
be a change in the linguistic status Quo have not usually been forthcoming on the
question of the type and modality of change regarding the question of a national
language. The paucity of materials on the question bears him out (I shall, for the
purpose of this research, concerned with the following proposals: Simpson (1978),
Osaji (1979) and Olagoke (1982).
Simpson (1979), His position on the national language question represents the
most unequivocal one in the literature up to this point. He sees the choice of a Nigerian
language as the national language in place of English as the ultimate aim of a national
language policy for Nigeria. He, however, draws a line between the ultimate aim of the
policy and what he calls the “Immediate objective” of the policy. The ultimate objective
29
presumably represents the preconditions for the ultimate aim. His proposal is, to a large
extent, an explication of the immediate objective of the national language policy.
His proposal consists of four “phases” each of these will be referred to in this
research. Simpson suggests that the national language policy should first aim at what he
called limited official multilingualism. This limited official multilingualism entails
taking stock of the languages within each State, the approximate number of users of
each language and the domains of use of the language. Decision will then be reached
“either by consensuses or on those to be considered as the official language particular
States, apart from English. These official languages will then be referred to as Nigeria‟s
official languages in addition to English. He tentatively proposes a maximum of three
as state languages apart from English. It is difficult to see why it is necessary to know
the approximate number of users of each language since, according to Simpson, this
choice is to be made “either by consensus or referendum”. A democratically conducted
referendum is certainly independent of official statistics on language census.
The second phase in Simpson‟s framework concerns the introduction of
designated state languages into public life, such as in the mass media, business and
education. In addition, he suggests that children in the geographical South of the
country be taught a language of the north and vice versa. The limitation of Simpson‟s
proposal comes from the following suggestion of his (p7)
That the choice of language (out of the state languages
spoken in particular areas although many towns have to
create classes for more than one state language, especially
in state capitals. that schools in areas whose languages are
not among and where the children do not adequately
understand any of the state languages may continue to
teach in the English language. (My emphasis, Bis)
Certain flaws emerge immediately from the suggestions made above. In the first place,
we find that while some towns and schools will be able to carry out their educational
affairs with just one language, the administration of other towns and schools will be
saddled with the use of multiple languages. Moreover, while a category of children will
be exposed to their mother tongue right from the start of their educational life, another
category will have to be contented with the language of the erstwhile colonizer.
30
Simpson justifies the need to have English-speaking schools on the ground that it is
necessary to „prevent children whose mother tongues are state languages outside the
towns where their parents reside, from having to travel far to attend schools which use
their mother tongues‟. It is easy to see that Simpson proposal has been built into a
confederal framework where everybody carries their ethnic background with them
whenever they go in the country. Nothing in the psychology of language prevents a
child of, for instance, Urhobo parents but born and bred in Benin from learning
successfully through the medium of Edo.
Simpson‟s suggestion that English speaking schools be set up for children
whose languages are not among the designated state languages overlooks one important
fact about Nigeria namely that it is precisely the speakers of these “remote” languages
who have the least exposure to English. This then raises the question as to whether any
of the State languages will not be more suitable than English.
Another draw back in Simpson‟s proposal is that it saddles learners with very
many languages in their formative years. This will hardly leave enough room for some
other creative learning. Let us consider, for example, a child whose mother tongue is
not one of the state languages. This child provided she is not to neglect her own mother
tongue, there will have to learn five languages: her own mother tongue, at least one
State language, English, a language of the opposite geographical area and the adopted
national languages.
Simpson‟s proposal that children in the geographical South be made to learn a
language of the geographical north and vice versa is simply unacceptable. In the first
place, the motion of geographical north or south is not only nebulous, but lacks
constitutional status. Is Idoma in the geographical north or south? A more fundamental
critique, of course, is that it is a proposal which cannot but promote one language at the
expense of others. The fact is that when southern school authorities have to choose a
language of the geographical north no other language apart from Hausa will attract
serious attention, whereas northern school administrators will legitimately have a
choice between Igbo and Yoruba. This will automatically put Hausa ahead of other
major languages. This would amount to building the choice of a national language into
phase two, an issue which is actually dealt with in his phase three.
Simpson reserves the actual choice of a national language for phase three. Thus
phase comes about according to him, after years of the application of phase two and it
31
involves choosing “by Consensus or referendum” there is no logical link between phase
two and phase three, since the referendum on the national language can be conducted
without reference to that on “State languages”.
Simpson‟s proposal cannot but lead to a cul-de-sac, and the flaws which have
been highlighted suggest that “State languages” particularly in linguistically
heterogeneous states, can have no status in a national language policy. Rather, we need
to look at the language situation in Local Government Areas (LGA) if we are really out
to ensure that the majority of Nigeria children learn in their own mother tongue.
He concludes his proposal by making an excursion into the relative strength of
the three major languages in Nigeria, the three languages which according to him, could
seriously be considered in the search for a national language, to identify the language
which will most probably emerge as the national language. He, however, did not allow
his analytical excursion to take him very far before arriving at the conclusion that the
other major languages should give way to Hausa. As it is the case with all the other
proposals so far presented on the national language question, statistical considerations
constitute the basis of all the argumentations. As a matter of fact most of the reasons
adduced by Simpson to support his choice of Hausa can be reduced to the number of
people who speak Hausa either as a first language or as a second language. Thus his
choice of Hausa as the proposed national language is based on the perceived numerical
superiority of the language. Other factors which in Simpson‟s contention speak in
favour of Hausa are:
1. Since Hausa has relatively fewer dialects its learnability will be enhanced over
and above other major languages.
2. Hausa has a greater number of Nigerian speaker not of northern origin.
3. Hausa has greater influence outside Nigerian borders.
I am simply not aware that the number of dialects of a language is a function of
learnability. Although Simpson consider the Nigerian languages from the standpoint of
available literature and critical studies done on them, this criterion does not seem to
him to be of any crucial relevance, since he still goes for Hausa in spite of his own
claim that Yoruba has an edge over the two other major languages in this respect.
If the choice of a national language for a country as politically and culturally
complex as Nigeria were just that of determining the language which possesses
numerical superiority in terms of first and second language speakers, then we the
32
people of Nigeria would have sung the “nunc dimitis”, of English as our official
language a long time ago. However, the issue is not that straight forward and herein lies
the major flaw in Simpson‟s proposal, as well as other proposals put forward in a
similar vein. As a matter of fact it is correct to say that the question of numerical
superiority constitutes the most crucial criterion in Simpson‟s framework then we must
conclude that he has argued against himself apparently without knowing it. Simpson
supports his choice of Hausa with the claim that “Hausa has been MORE READILY
and more widely embraced by a large number of non-Hausa Nigerians from the four
corners of the Federation. (p. 14). We do not have to reject this claim before we can
argue against the choice or relative numerical superiority as a crucial factor in the
choice of a national language. The counter/argument is taken precisely from Simpson‟s
analysis. He says inter-alia:
“…This stems from the attitude of the northerner towards the Hausa
language. Very many northerners would refuse to use English even
when they know it …”
(P 13) (My emphasis B.S)
What we would like to ask is who prevents non-Hausa Nigerians from refusing
to use Hausa. “even when they know it”? Without realizing its implications for the
choice of national language, Simpson‟s observation shows that the attitudinal criterion
is more crucial than that of numerical superiority or learnability. Needless to say, the
attitudinal criterion is directly linked to socio-political factors. It is rather strange that
Simpson‟s proposal has nothing to say on the most crucial factors in the choice of a
national language, in spite of the fact that he did make reference to the „delicate nature‟
of choosing a national language. The step towards choosing a national language has to
be a cautious one, not because of any difficulty in determining numerical superiority or
ease of learnability but precisely because of socio-political factors. This issue will be
taken up in greater detail in my research.
Osaji (1979) In fairness to him it has got to be stated that his apparent
pessimism is probably a result of his exceptionally perceptive understanding of the
socio-political and cultural problems involved in the choice of a national language.
Much more than in Sampson‟s proposal, we find, in Osaji‟s analysis that greater
recognition has got to be accorded to attitudinal factors over and above a mere
consideration of a numerical superiority. He correctly analyzed Nigeria‟s situation as
33
being characterized by a “multiplicity of antagonistic great traditions. He goes further to
say:
…Since each of these great traditions is numerically and
ideologically strong enough to support separate and large
scale socio-cultural and administrative integrations, their
competition within a single polity makes for rather constant
internal tension and for inter-ethnic disunity.
The problem with Osaji‟s analysis is that he appears to see Nigeria‟s language situation
as a completely hopeless one. His analysis relies mainly on the Federal Government‟s
position on the language issue:
The Government is fully aware that the trend the world
over is to have a national language which is a means of
preserving the people‟s culture. Although the adoption of a
lingua France in Nigeria is a task which cannot be achieved
overnight, Government is of the view that a beginning
should be made as soon as possible and considers it to be in
the interest of national unity that each child should be
encouraged to learn one of three major languages in
Nigeria other than his own (vernacular).
The position of the Federal Government on the language issue will be subjected to
critical analysis. Needless to say, a critique of the Federal Government‟s position is also
to be seen as a critique of all other proposals presented within the same “Wazobia”
framework.
Osaji, who basically remains within the Wazobia framework, has technically
ruled out the possibility of Nigeria adopting an indigenous language as the national
language to be politically neutral for it to become a national language. He further
contends that there is no politically neutral indigenous language in the country. In spite
of this observation, he suggests a set of factors which according to him affect the choice
of an indigenous national language and which ought to be considered by the authorities.
these factors are:
a. Population of speakers, with age, occupation and class distribution.
34
b. Location: geographical, political and social boundaries.
c. Present status: any evidence of change in status e.g. decline, increase, age-shift,
geographical extension, etc.
d. Literature: oral and written tradition, use in educational institutions and in
political, religious and other organisations; mass media using the language, such
as newspapers, radio, television.
e. History of any specialized use of the language including education, history of
social and religious pressure groups, and history of any relation with other
languages of the area concerned.
f. economic strength: method of finance, state or private or national, staff
recruitment and training facilities, availability of teaching materials, foreign aid
and technical assistance requirements:
g. Administrative, commercial and mass media requirements in terms of cost for
changing language.
h. Adult education facilities, and literacy campaigns.
Osaji however, does not show exactly how crucial these factors are in the choice
of a national language. The most curious thing about his proposal is that he calls on us
to allow an ill-defined concept of the “spirit of Ramatism” (pp 172 – 173) to prevail so
that Hausa could be adopted as the national language after virtually arguing against the
possibility of the emergence of indigenous language as national language. OLAGOKE
(1982)
Olagoke‟s contribution, very much like the proposals already considered, is set
within the WAZOBIA framework. Typically, not all the proposals set within the
WAZOBIA framework are sufficiently convinced about the possibilities of the ultimate
victory of an indigenous language over English. The pessimistic streak encountered in
Osaji‟s analysis is also to be found in Olagoke‟s. According to Olagoke, English will
most likely remain Nigeria‟s common language “for many years to come” as “there is
no linguistic group in this country, however minor, that would like to see any language
prevail other than its own, and failing that, they will not allow any ethnic and political
prejudice may inhibit the selection of a national language. However what weakens his
argument is his apparent inability to situate the phenomenon of ethnic and political
prejudice, which characterizes contemporary neo-colonial Nigeria within the correct
historical and socio-economic context.
35
Olagoke who, according to the title of his paper, sets out to discuss the issue of
the quest for a national language for Nigeria, devotes a lot of time to questioning the
rationale behind the teaching of foreign languages in Nigerian schools, so much so, that
he is unable to come up with any substantial improvement on the Federal Government‟s
position on the language issue. What he calls the “best linguistic policy hardly goes
beyond what the Government itself considers a “beginning”. We find the crux of his
proposal in the following:
Sorry; for every post-primary student to master a major or
class one Nigeria language other than the mother tongue of
that is major or speakers of major languages. It means
learning one more, which ever is convenient or acceptable.
Children from the other linguistic groups would learn any
major language. If a firm foundation in the mother tongue
is first laid, it will be mastered in primary school and
continually reinforced throughout life. The major Nigerian
language chosen as a second Nigerian language would be
learned in secondary school along with English. The
additional burden of other European languages would not
apply, leaving the student free, for scientific and cultural
subjects.
I have quoted this passage in full to show exactly how much Olagoke has to say on
what his topic promises us, that is “choosing a national language for Nigeria”. How for
instance, does the fact that a Nigerian has acquired a second Nigeria language lead to
the emergence of a national language? And how are we to interpret “convenient or
acceptable” in the choice of a second Nigerian language in the Federal Republic? In
spite of the superficiality of Olagoke analysis I find his categorization of Nigerian
language quite useful. It, at least, renders a possible controversy on how to define a
minority language unnecessary. He has divided Nigerian – languages into four classes
on the basis of the number of speakers of the language.
Before concluding this critical review of existing proposals of the national
language issue, I will consider the most substantial arguments which inform the
Wazobia option. It is to be noted that the most important characteristic of the Wazobia
36
option is that it places the three major languages of Nigeria, i.e. Hausa, Igbo and
Yoruba on an equal footing, how belt on a higher pedestal than that of all other Nigeria
languages. There is no explicit reference to any of the three languages as the best
candidates for the status of the national language.
Traditional wisdom on the national language issue has come to regards Hausa,
Igbo and Yoruba, referred to as class one languages in Olagoke‟s framework, as the
only candidates which could be considered in the choice of a national Nigeria
languages. Simpson, for instance, would like to convince us that “the three major
Nigeria languages stands out as the OBVIOUS candidates for filling the position now
being, occupied by English, “pig (my emphasis B. S.) Let us now look at the arguments
which underlie such a position.
The most important argument put forward by the Wazobia school of thought has
to do with numerical considerations. The argument based on numerical considerations
cannot be more forcefully presented than the way Simpson presents it in the following:
(also on p. 9)
These three languages definitely account for more than half
of the Nigerian population, from the point of view of
mother-tongue usage. When we add the number of people
who speak at least one of them as second language, the
remaining percentage of the population may be less than
70%. Most of the other languages would each then cover
only a small percentage of the entire population of Nigeria
most often, less than 1%.
We are thus reminded that Wazobia speakers constitute over 80% of Nigerians. This,
from the point of view of numerical statistics, is incontrovertible. If the situation were
so straightforward the national language question would have been a non-issue, since
any country where about 80% of the population speak a particular language cannot be
said to have a language problem. The Soviet Union, for instance, did not find it difficult
to adopt Russia as national language since more than half the population speak the
language, similarly, if the former Northern Nigeria has been a sovereign state there
would have been no problem whatsoever in having Hausa as the national language of
that hypothetical country. The problem with those in the Wazobia school of thought
37
who are pushing the numerical superiority argument is that they are committing what
can be described as the fallacy of numbers. This fallacy of numbers lies in not
perceiving the crucial difference between “80% with three” and “80% with one”. They
have failed to see that Wazobia is only an imaginary language, that what we have on the
ground are three languages of what Osaji has very aptly referred to as “antagonistic
great traditions”. Or are we to believe that somebody in the WAZOBIA school is about
to conjure up a language out of these antagonisc great tradition?
The truth of the matter is that the Wazobia option is the best recipe for the
perpetuation of an imperialist tongue in a former belong a former colony. This is
particularly so because nobody has told us how to fill the theoretical and practical gap
between the three language status and the ultimate status of a national language. What it
all implies is that while the languages of the “antagonistic great traditions” continue to
have their say, English will continue to have its way.
The remaining arguments presented by this very influence school of thought
which can be considered substantial can been seen in the following observation taken
from Olagoke ( P. 201).
They (i.e. Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba) have been used in
education and mass media and posses relatively wide
bodies of literature. Then populations of speakers are large
enough to produce adequate numbers of teachers to instruct
the other linguistic groups.
It is undeniable that a Wazobia language has some initial advantages over a non a
Wazobia language. However, these initial advantages will be out weighed by the socio-
political considerations which tlilt in favour of non-Wazobia language. As a matter of
fact, the initial advantages of the Wazobia languages need not be overemphasized as no
Nigerian language, Wazobia or non Wazobia, has gone beyond the elementary stage
with regard to educational, legal and political needs. This implies that a lot of effort will
still be required from the government and the people of Nigeria to make any language
chosen adequately perform its functions as a national language. Even if we grant the
Wazobia languages are advanced with respect to educational needs, mass media and
literature, these initial advantages will constitute necessary but non-sufficient grounds
for a pre-eminent position, since the initial advantages are not eternal categories but
38
acquired in the course of history. As Swahili and particularly English have shown
today‟s inconsequential language can become a world language in the course of time,
given the right historical and political circumstances.
The weaker argument of the Wazobia option is that which claims that it will be
easier for the Wazobia language to produce an adequate number of teachers to teach
other linguistic groups. If the 80% of the Wazobia speakers include second language
speakers, there is no reason why second language non-wazobia speakers cannot teach
other linguistic groups. A rational language policy is not necessarily the quickest one.
In concluding this critique of the Wazobia option, I would like to draw attention
to some other problems which have not featured in the analysis so far considered. The
first of course is the anti-democratic nature of the Wazobia syndrome. It violates one
basic text of the corporate existence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Wazobia
syndrome reflected an extremely narrow perception of the cultural and political set-up
of our nation.
A more practical problem of the Wazobia option is that it is a veritable source of
disunity and discord in Nigeria. The point is this: If government says that “each child
should be encouraged to learn one of the three major languages in Nigeria other than his
own vernacular who is going to decide which other Nigeria languages the child learn?
The child‟s parents or the authorities of the child‟s State? If the latter are to make the
decision, how is the decision going to be made? What line of argument would, for
instance, like the authorities in Imo State in deciding whether the Aba child should
learn Hausa or Yoruba? Conversely, how will the Kano State authorities decides
between Igbo and Yoruba? Will a geographical zone with more ethnic minorities not
remain with “its own Wazobia” more than other geographical zones with less number of
ethnic minorities? Isn‟t the Wazobia option leading us along the path of ethnic ganging
up in a most dangerous manner? If the Wazobia syndrome is incapable of solving the
language problem of the country, it should at least refrain from further dividing our
country along ethnic lines. I strongly believe that the only chance of Nigeria having an
indigenous national language lies in adopting an appropriate non-Wazobia language as
the national language, with a policy attached to it, this brings about language policy in
education.
Wikipedia says many countries have a language policy designed to favour or
discourage the use of a particular language or set of languages. Although nations
39
historically have used language policies most often to promote one official language at
the expense of others, many countries now have polices designed to protect and
promote regional and ethnic language whose viability is threatened. Language policy as
is what a government does either officially through legislation, decisions or policy to
determine how languages are used, cultivate language skills needed to meet national
priorities or to establish the rights of individuals or groups to use and maintain
languages.
The preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity in today‟s world is a major
concern to many scientists, artists, writers, politicians, leaders of linguistic
communities, and defenders of linguistic human rights. Up to one half of the 600
languages currently spoken in the world are estimated to be in danger of disappearing
during the 21st century. Many factors affect the existence and usage of any given
human language, including the size of the native speaking population, its use informal
communication, and the geographical dispersion and the socio-economic weight of the
speakers. National language policies can either mitigate or exacerbate the effects of
some of these factors.
The formulation of a policy
Crucial to language planning in the formulation of a policy. This formulation involves
the following general objectives:
i) Development: An examination of whether the policy contributes to the
development of the society in question.
ii) Democratization: An examination of whether the policy is favourable to the
creation of equal opportunity for members of the society.
iii) Unity: An examination of whether the policy is going to reinforce the unity of
the society in question.
iv) Foreign-relations: An examination of whether the policy could be an obstacle
to communication with the international community.
The political ideology of Nigeria can be seen in the light of the principles above.
This ideology is provided by the underlying assumption of its political constitution and
the allied derivative documents such as national development plans. In paragraph I of
NPE the country‟s ideology is identified by the following statements:
1) A free and democratic society
40
2) A just and egalitarian society
3) A united, strong and self reliant nation
4) A great and dynamic economy
5) A land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens.
Based on the national ideology above are the aims and objectives of education in
Nigeria stated in paragraph 5 as follows:
1) The inculcation of national consciousness and national unity
2) The inculcation of the right type of values and attitude for the survival of the
individual and the society
3) The training of the mind in the understanding of the world around
4) The acquisition of appropriate skills, abilities and competences both mental and
physical as equipment for the individual to live in and contribute to the
development of the society.
The N. P. E., will be assessed later in this research in terms of whether it fulfils
the aims and objectives above.
Requirements for a language policy: In formulating a language policy, five or six
major factors or dimensions are considered very useful. They are useful in
differentiating between language policy and accompanying developments that tend to
obtain where three different dimensions or decisions (see 6:3) have been reached.
The factors can be summarized as follows:
i. Perceived socio-cultural integration of the society in question. In other words,
there is the need to find out whether the society in question is highly integrated
in terms of having great traditions in common at the national levels. These
traditions may include, among others, history, religion, culture, literatures etc.
ii. There is the need for a selection of national language among the various
languages that are in use in the society. Such a decision may lead to the
assignment of different roles to these languages. In assigning functions the
government would consider the factor of political integration of the different
groups of people, that is nationalism.
iii. There is the need for adaptation of a language of wider communication (LWC).
This will involve a consideration of whether such a language will be permanent
41
national symbol or not, or a transitional language which can be used for modern
function, or a unifying language that could only be seen as a working language.
iv. Another factor that has to do with the concern of language planning is the issue
of selection of minor or major language, foreign or indigenous, etc. If a foreign
language is selected, do the users aim at endonormative (local norm)
standardization? If the modernization of the language tradition is to be done, it
is the modernization of one or several languages that would be pursued?
v. There is also the need to consider the goals of bilingualism or multilingual
within the society in which the policy has been designed. The issue that would
be considered are whether the local, regional or transitional language would be
upgraded to the languages of wider communication or function as the prime
languages, or whether to abandon all other indigenous language and make use of
the transitional LWC or a consideration of the regional languages to function as
national languages would be up graded to function as the prime languages.
vi. The consideration of the goal of biculturalism is necessarily important. The
decision has to be made as to whether to transfer the transitional language to the
language of wider communication thus leading to modernity or new integration,
or try to blend tradition with the modern spheres, that is, taking on the foreign
language in question and using it alongside some indigenous language as the
basis for fostering unity or integrating the bilingual/multilingual community.
From what we have mentioned above as the principles needed for the formulation
of effective language policy, it seems that the Nigeria language policy is not a standard
policy since it failed to meet with these principles mention above. In the opinion of
Emenajo (1998), it may be a misnomer to talk about language policy in Nigeria because
the nation does not have a de jure national language policy. Although he recognizes the
existence of a de facto policy, one that can be extrapolated from a number of different
but complementary government documents, Emenanjo laments that “…Nigeria does
not have a national policy on languages because she does not consider languages
important in the planning, sustenance, and overall development of the Nigerian polity --
- “The deliberate omission of language in both the mission statements of the National
Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) and the Vision Report, observes
Emenanjo, underscores the low of rating of language in the development paradigms of
post dependent Nigerian governments. As Agbedo (1999:2) notes… “Contrary to what
42
obtained in the Old Europe where the birth of a new nation witnessed a wholistic
approach to development programmes… the Nigerian nation like most ex-colonial
Black Africa nations failed to appreciate the immense potentials of indigenous
languages while articulating its national development programmes …” Nigeria had to
wait for almost two to elapse after independence before some attempts to formulate a
comprehensive language policy were made; yet the policies so far enunciated have been
evidently negligible compared to the language planning efforts of the newly
independent nations of Europe.
The policy statement concerning language policy in Nigeria is contained in the
Federal Government National Policy on Education enunciated in 1977 and revised in
1987 and 1995. Among other things, the multilingual language policy seems to accord
well with the logic of the Nigerian language situation described by Emenanjo (1998:4)
as „…a multilingual and multicultural mosaic with some 400 odd languages: 3
demulcents (Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba); 12 choralects, 3 exolects (English, French, and
Arabic of which, English is official), and the remaining other chibonalects or „local‟
small group languages …” Specific provisions of the policy recognize the special
position of English as an exoglossic official language; the primus inter pares position of
Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba as L1 and L2 and as potential indigenous lingua francas, the
equality of all ethnic groups and their languages and the use of all languages in the
nursery and „junior‟ primary school education as well as in adult education. Like any
well written document, the National language policy, notes Olafe (1990:51) is quite
beautiful on paper: it caters for English as a language of inter ethnic/international
communication, the major and minor languages in the states, and the multi-
ethnic/multilingual nature of the country. However, the policy has not yielded the
desired result largely due to what Ojo (1998) cited in Agbedo (1998:3) feels is “…the
yawning gap between policy formulation and policy implementation”. The problem of
policy implementation tends to constitute the crux of dialectical disputation among
scholars. To some, (cf Chumbow, 1990,Awoniyi, J.A (1982); Jubril, 1990) the
implementation problem stems largely from the obvious inconsistencies of the policy
while the other argument is that the trilingual policy is impracticable in a multilingual
Nigeria that has been trying unsuccessfully to stimulate a delicate balance between
inherently antagonistic ethnic nationalities.
43
Given the seeming intractable nature of Nigeria‟s language problems, a set of
proposals has been advanced concerning the adoption of a functional national language
policy. The proposals illustrate two distinct approaches multilingual and unilingual to
the problems. While the multilingual approach (cf Simpson, 1978; Osaji, 1979;
Olagoke, (1982) represents one variety of the attempt to streamline the current trilingual
policy, the unilingual approach represented by Sofunike 1990) rejects all the proposals
cast within the mould of Wazobia theoretical framework. There is also the status quo
approach which favours the retention of English as Nigerian‟s lingua franca. Perhaps it
was in recognition of the disparities that characterized the literature on solutions to
Nigeria‟s language problems that Bamgbose (1976) identified three policy options for
Nigeria. These include (i) the status quo approach which will retain English as a lingua
franca, (ii) the gradualist approach that involves planned multilingualism until one
language evolves as a lingua franca and (iii) the radical approach which calls for an
immediate policy decision in favour of a particular language, one that will be taught in
all States in addition to the major language of the states and English. Bamgbose went
further to posit that if the language of national integration is one which unites the
various ethnic nationalities as well as the elite and the masses, that language is yet to be
found in Nigeria and an essential prerequisite to finding it is a firm decision on one of
the three policy options.
Interestingly, the current timid and flat-footed national language policy is the
result of a policy decision already taken in favour of the status quo approach option.
These so called trilingual language policy which pretends to accord official status to a
number of indigenous languages and priority attention to their development has turned
out to be merely cosmetic and hypocritical as most Nigerian languages have hardly
survived the overbearing heat of the English language often regarded by the ignorant
ruling elite and policy makers as Nigeria‟s lingual franca par excellence. It may seem
reasonable to concede that Nigeria has not been lacking in growing statutory provisions
and institutional arrangements geared towards developing local languages. For instance,
the former NERC (Nigeria Education Research Council) now NERDC (Nigeria
Education Research Development Council) has produced curricular for the primary,
junior and senior secondary schools in Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba; Braille orthographies
in Hausa Igbo and Yoruba; and funded metalanguage projects in Hausa, Igbo and
Yoruba. The National Language Centre (now renamed Language Development Centre)
44
has equally produced four manuals of Nigerian orthographies covering twenty
languages, a Quadralingual dictionary on legislative terminology in Hausa, Igbo and
Yorba; harmonized L1 and L2 syllabuses for Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba in Colleges of
Education. The National Institute for Nigerian languages has also been established
presumably to train teachers in local languages and research into different aspects of
Nigerian languages. Although laudable, these measures, according to Essien (1998:10),
… have come too little too late … and therefore fall short of the tremendous and
sustained efforts, energies, and commitment that European governments put to develop
their own natural languages to cope with the linguistic needs of their own respective
societies …‟The foregoing‟ perhaps explains the unfortunate situation whereby English
of the country, one defined by Essien (1996) as “…a language in a multilingual setting
which, regardless of size, usually invests its speakers not only with a full panoply of
uses that signify a standard language but also with prestige, self-confidence and
power….”
The grave implications which the prevailing linguistic situation for the indigenous
languages and Nigeria‟s overall national development struggle have been variously
discussed (cf Agbedo, 1998a, b, 1999, Chumbow, 1990; Bamgbose, 1983; Elugbe,
1990, Simpson 1978; Sofunke, 1990; Essien, 1998). The essential strands of the
argument point some what gloomily to the fact that Nigeria‟s timid language policy and
the blind glorification of the English language by the ruling class have conspired to
undermine the local languages and rob them of their utilitarian values in the all
important national development drive. In this connection for instance, Agbedo (1998B)
examined the concept of exclusion and showed how the efficacity of language as an
instrument of exclusion has been used by the millieux diligent to exclude the vast
majority of Nigerians from participating in the overall national development process.
Given the maniacal tenacity with which the powerful minority in charge of the socio-
economic and political management of the nation holds on to the primacy of language,
Oyalaran (1990:27) laments that the ruling minority is devising newer ways of
marginalizing the non-literate majority better methods of stripping their language of all
values and of roles in disseminating to Nigerians requisite information about the affairs
of the nation.
In the light of the fact that he who controls language controls history and perhaps
destiny (cf Allen, 1976) and given the that English language is by all intents and
45
purposes “ a reinforcing agent of the British value and ways of life” (cf Essien, 1995b),
Agbedo (1999:5) enjoins Nigeria and other African nations where development is being
carried out in what Fishman (1968) refers to as „official exoglossic language to develop
with language(s)rooted in the socio-cultural heritage, tradition and collective
consciousness of the people as obtained in European, American, Australian and South
East Asia Nations. This is imperatives if African nations hope to cope with the
challenges of the new millennium.
46
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter is organised under these headings:
3.1 Design of the Study
This research which is descriptive in nature which is based on multilingualism
in Nigeria and it implications for implementing the National Policy on Education. It
involves the study of a group of people or items considered to be representative of the
entire group/population.
3.2 Area of Study/Research Area
The question of a national language affects the whole nation. Because of that
Nigeria as a whole is suppose to be covered in this research, but because in the
secondary school, within the Nsukka Education Zone of Anambra State teachers in
those schools came from different ethnic groups and thereby speaks different
languages. That is why the research study was based on ten secondary schools within
the Nsukka Education Zone including the University Secondary School.
3.3 Sampling and Sampling Procedure
In carrying out this research, ten (10) secondary schools out of a total of twenty-
five (25) schools in the Nsukka Education zone were selected by a random sampling
technique.
The Ten Secondary Schools Are
1) University Secondary School, Nsukka.
2) Nsukka High School, Nsukka.
3) Community Secondary School, Itch.
4) Community Secondary School Ihe-Akpu Awka.
5) Girls Secondary School, Lejja.
6) Community Secondary School Obukpa
7) Shalom Academy Nsukka
47
8) Saint Cyprian Secondary School , Nsukka
9) Community Secondary School Ibagwa-Ani
10) Community Secondary School Alor-Uno
3.4 Instrument for Data Collection
In the ten secondary schools, 200 respondents were contacted and given a
questionnaire. In addition ten secondary schools randomly selected, twenty (20)
teachers per school, were also randomly selected to represent the entire teaching staff.
Table 1 number of entire populations
Schools No of teachers
1 20
2 20
3 20
4 20
5 20
6 20
7 20
8 20
9 20
10 20
48
The items are built on a four point rating scale.
A - Agree = 4
SA - Strongly agree = 3
D - Disagree = 2
SD - Strongly disagreed = 1
The value attached to the Questionnaire items helped in the analysis of the data
collected.
3.5 Method of Data Collection
The data was collected through questionnaire.
3.6 Method of Data Analysis
The data collected would be analysed using the mean of the responses of the
respondents on each items in the questionnaire.
The cut off points for the mean value were determined. Items that attracted
mean scores from 2.50 and above were considered as positive while items with scores
of less than 2.50 were considered as negative.
Instrument for data collection is the questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed to elicit responses from the respondents.
3.7 Validation of Instrument
The questionnaires were validated by a specialist in the department of linguistics
and Nigerian languages, and the project supervisor. All of them were from the
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
49
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of the data collected during
the research survey followed by the interpretation. The presentation will take the form
of tabulation followed by the analysis, explanation and interpretation of the data
collected from the questionnaire. Here the objectives of the study will be looked into
and the research questions answered.
The items are built on a four point rating scale.
SA = Strongly Agree = 4
A = Agree = 3
SD = Strongly Disagree = 2
D = Disagree = 1
The values attached to the response items helped in the analysis of the data
collected.
Table I(a) Teachers reaction to the merits of multilingualism, whether a
multilingual individual has access to world technology and
educational advancement.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 46 184
A = 3 31 93
SD = 2 2 4
D = 1 3 3
82 284 3.46
The above table shows that forty six of the respondents (teachers) strongly
agreed and thirty one agreed that a multilingual individual has access to world
technology and educational advancement. However two of the respondents strongly
disagreed with the same statement while three of the respondents disagreed.
50
Summatively, this reaction has a mean score of 3.46, which is above the cut-off mark of
2.5. Therefore, a multilingual individual has access to world technology and
educational advancement.
Table I(b) Information from teachers on whether multilingualism
facilitates interpersonal, ethnic and interracial communication.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 56 224
A = 3 19 57
SD = 2 2 4
D = 1 5 5
82 290 3.54
The table above shows that multilingualism facilitates interpersonal, ethnic and inter-
racial communication, as evidenced by the responses of fifty six (56) out of eighty two
respondents (strongly agreed) while nineteen (19) respondents agreed with the
statement. This attracted a mean score of 3.54 which is above the cut-off point.
Table 1(c) Responses of teachers to whether multilingualism enhances
faster thinking and reasoning.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 28 112
A = 3 23 69
SD = 2 13 26
D = 1 18 18
82 225 2.76
The table above has a mean score of 2.76, which is above the cut-off point of 2.5. This
shows a positive response that multilingualism enhances faster thinking and reasoning.
51
Table 2(a) Teachers’ response on whether multilingualism leads to dominance
of one language and a progressively decreasing efficiency in the
other languages.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 9 36
A = 3 29 87
SD = 2 12 24
D = 1 32 32
82 179 2.18
The above table shows that thirty eight (38_ respondents agreed to the statement while
forty four respondents disagreed. This shows that greater number of respondents
disagreed attracting a mean score of 2.18 below the cut-off point. Therefore
multilingualism does not lead to dominance of one language and a progressively
decreasing efficiency in the others.
Table 2(b) Whether Multilingualism Creates Problems in a Bilingual Setting
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 12 36
A = 3 31 93
SD = 2 11 22
D = 1 28 28
82 179 2.27
Table 2(b) Whether multilingualism create problems in a bilingual setting. The above
table shows that forty three (43) of the total number of respondents agreed that
multilingualism creates problems in a multilingual setting while thirty nine (39) of the
52
respondents disagreed. The table has a mean score of 2.18 which is below the cut-off
point. Therefore, multilingualism does not create problem in a bilingual setting.
Table 2(c) Multilingualism can lead to the dearth of other languages.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 15 60
A = 3 18 54
SD = 2 15 30
D = 1 34 34
82 178 2.17
The table above shows the teachers‟ reaction whether multilingualism can lead to the
dearth of other languages. Forty nine (49) out of total number of respondents disagreed
while thirty three (33) teachers were of the opinion that multilingualism can lead to the
dearth of other languages. The table attracted a mean score of 1.91 implying that
multilingualism cannot lead to the dearth of other languages.
Table 3(a) Multilingualism is a Problem in Implementing the National Policy
on Education in Nigeria.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 50 220
A = 3 18 54
SD = 2 4 8
D = 1 10 10
82 292 3.56
The table above shows that sixty eight (68) out of a total number of eighty two teacher
respondents agreed that multilingualism is a problem in implementing the National
Policy on Education in Nigeria, while fourteen (14) of the respondents disagreed. The
53
table has a high mean score of 3.56 indicating that there is a problem in the
implementation of language policy in a multilingual Nigeria.
Table 3(b) Non-committal by government to provide textbooks and develop
orthographies as stated in the National Policy on Education.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 36 144
A = 3 37 111
SD = 2 4 8
D = 1 5 5
82 268 3.27
The table above shows that thirty six and thirty seven respondents strongly agreed and
agreed respectively, that government is not committed to providing textbooks and
developing orthographies to aid the implementation of language policy. Nine
respondents however disagreed. The table has a mean score of 3.27, which goes to
confirm the non-commitment by government to the provision of textbooks and
orthographies to aid the implementation of language policy.
Table 3(c) The implementation of the policy is hampered by the clause-
“subject to the availability of teachers”.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 23 62
A = 3 30 90
SD = 2 11 22
D = 1 18 18
82 222 2.70
The above table shows that fifty three of the teacher respondents agreed that the clause
“subject to the availability of teachers” hampers the implementation of policy while
54
twenty nine responding disagreed. The table has a mean score of 2.70 which indicates
that the clause hampers the implementation.
Table 4 Multilingualism affects the education system in Nigeria.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 15 60
A = 3 29 87
SD = 2 11 22
D = 1 27 27
82 196 2.37
Table 4 above shows that forty four (44) teacher respondents agreed that
multilingualism affects the education system in Nigeria, while thirty eighty (38) of the
respondents disagreed. The table has a mean score of 2.34 which is below the cut-off
point. It follows therefore that multilingualism does not affect the education system in
Nigeria.
Table 5 Multilingualism poses a lot of problem in the Nigerian Education
system
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 15 60
A = 3 15 45
SD = 2 15 30
D = 1 37 37
82 272 2.09
The table above shows that thirty (30) respondents agreed that multilingualism poses a
lot of problem in the Nigeria education system while fifty two (52) of the respondents
55
disagreed with the statement. This response attracted a mean score of 2.09 which is
below the cut-off point. Thus multilingualism does not pose a lot of problem in
Nigerian Education system.
Table 6 The use of many languages in Nigeria makes it difficult to have a
language policy in Education
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 27 108
A = 3 30 90
SD = 2 16 32
D = 1 9 9
82 239 2.91
The above table shows that twenty seven (27) and thirty (30) respondents strongly
agreed and agreed respectively with the statement that the use of many languages in
Nigeria makes it difficult to have a language policy in Education. Twenty five (25) of
the respondents however disagreed to the statement. On the whole, the responses have a
mean score of 2.91 which confirms that the use of many languages makes it difficult to
have a language policy in Education.
Table 7 An indigenous language should be chosen as the official language in
Nigeria
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 19 76
A = 3 23 69
SD = 2 25 50
D = 1 15 15
82 210 (2.56)
56
The above table shows that forty two (42) respondents out of the total number of eighty
two agreed that an indigenous language should be chosen as the official language in
Nigeria, while forty (40) respondents disagreed with the choice of an indigenous
language as the official language in Nigeria. On the whole, the response attracted a
mean score of 2.56 thus accepting the choice of an indigenous language to be chosen as
an official language.
Table 8 The National Policy on Education is relevant in solving the
multilingual problem in Nigerian education.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 25 100
A = 3 35 105
SD = 2 10 20
D = 1 12 12
82 237 2.89
The above table shows that sixty (60) teacher respondents out of the total of eight two
(82) agreed that the National Policy on Education is relevant in solving the multilingual
problems in Nigerian education system. Twenty two (22) of the respondents however
disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean score of 2.89 which confirms
that the national policy is relevant in solving the multilingual problems in Nigerian
Education system.
57
Table 9 National Policy on Education is silent over the multilingual
problems in Education.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 35 140
A = 3 38 114
SD = 2 6 12
D = 1 3 3
82 271 3.29
The table above shows that seventy three (73) teacher respondents out of the total of
eighty two were of the opinion that the National Policy on education is silent over the
multilingual problems in Education. Nine (9) teacher respondents however disagreed.
The table attracted a mean score of 3.29 which confirms in strong terms that the
National Policy is silent over the problems of multilingualism in Nigeria.
Table 10 Nigeria has no language policy
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 37 148
A = 3 30 90
SD = 2 9 18
D = 1 6 6
82 260 3.17
The above table shows that sixty seven (67) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
where of the opinion that Nigeria has no language policy. Fifteen (15) others disagreed
with the statement. The table has a mean score of 3.17 which is above the cut-off point.
This confirms that Nigeria has no language policy.
58
Table 11 A language policy is imperative for a multilingual country like
Nigeria.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 30 120
A = 3 27 81
SD = 2 15 30
D = 1 10 10
82 241 2.92
The above table shows that fifty seven (57) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that a language policy is imperative in a multilingual country like Nigeria
Twenty five (25) others disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean score
of 2.93 confirming that a language policy is imperative in a multilingual country like
Nigeria.
Table 12 The content of the present National Policy on Education on
multilingualism is grossly inadequate.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 36 144
A = 3 30 90
SD = 2 10 20
D = 1 6 6
82 260 3.17
The table above shows that sixty six (66) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that the content of the National Policy on Education on Multilingualism is
grossly inadequate. Sixteen other however disagreed with the statement. The table has a
mean score of 3.17 which confirms that the content of the present National Policy on
Education on Multilingualism is grossly inadequate.
59
Table 13 The National Policy on Education has not fully addressed the
problems of multilingualism.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 34 136
A = 3 25 75
SD = 2 10 30
D = 1 13 13
82 254 3.09
The table shows that fifty nine (59) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents agreed
that the National Policy on Education has not fully addressed the problems of
multilingualism in Nigeria. Twenty three (23) other teacher respondents disagreed with
the statement. The table attracted a mean score of 3.09 which shows that the National
Policy on Education has not fully addressed the problems of multilingualism.
Table 14 The use of mother tongue aids learning and enhances academic
performance of students.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 26 104
A = 3 49 147
SD = 2 3 14
D = 1 4 11
82 246 3.36
The table above shows that seventy five (75) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that the use of mother tongue aids learning and enhances academic performance
of students. Eighteen (18) others disagreed with the statement. The reactions to the
above statement attracted a mean score of 3.36. This confirms that the use of mother
tongue aids learning and enhances the academic performance of students.
60
Table 15 Mother tongue is considered adequate as a medium of
instruction in Nigeria Education system
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 16 64
A = 3 32 69
SD = 2 12 24
D = 1 22 22
82 206 2.51
The above table shows that forty eight (48) out of eighty two (82) teacher
respondents agreed with the statement that mother tongue is considered adequately as a
medium of instruction in Nigeria Education system. Thirty four (34) others disagreed
with the statement. The table attracted a mean score of 2.51 and shows that mother
tongue is considered adequate as a medium of instruction in Nigeria education system.
Table 16 In early primary schools, mother tongue of our pupils are used as a
medium of instructions in our schools.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 25 100
A = 3 40 120
SD = 2 6 12
D = 1 11 11
82 243 2.96
The above table shows that sixty five (65) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that in early primary , mother tongue of our pupils are used as a medium of
instructions while seventeen others disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a
mean score of 2.96, confirming that in many cases mother tongue are used as a medium
of instruction in our school.
61
Table 17 Children learn better and easier when they are taught using their
mother tongue.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 33 132
A = 3 36 108
SD = 2 5 10
D = 1 8 8
82 258 3.14
The above table shows that sixty nine (69) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that children learn better when they are taught using their mother tongue.
Thirteen other respondents disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean
score of 3.14, showing in strong terms that children learn better and easier when taught
with the mother tongue.
Table 18 The National Policy on Education does not encourage
multilingualism
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 14 56
A = 3 18 54
SD = 2 16 32
D = 1 34 34
82 176 2.14
The above table shows that thirty two (32) out of eighty two(82) teacher respondents
agreed that the National Policy on Education does not encourage multilingualism.
Fifty(50) teacher respondents disagreed with this statement. The table attracted a mean
score of 2.14 which is below the cut-off point of 2.5. This shows that the National
policy on Education encourages multilingualism.
62
Table 19 National Policy on Education encourages the use of English as a
medium of instructions in schools.
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 33 132
A = 3 38 114
SD = 2 5 10
D = 1 6 6
82 262 3.19
The table above shows that seventy one (71) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that the National Policy on Education encourages the use of English as a
medium of instruction in schools. Eleven other respondents disagreed with the
statement. The table has a mean score of 3.19, which shows that the National Policy on
Education encourages the use of English as a medium of instruction in our schools.
Table 20 Multilingualism breeds disunity in Nigeria
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 20 80
A = 3 19 57
SD = 2 26 52
D = 1 17 17
82 206 2.51
The table above shows that thirty nine (39) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that multilingualism breeds disunity in Nigeria. Forty three other disagreed with
the idea. The table attracted a mean score of 2.51 which shows that multilingualism
breeds disunity in the country.
63
Table 21 The National Policy on Education encourages multilingualism as a
means of fostering unity in the country
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 20 80
A = 3 22 66
SD = 2 16 32
D = 1 24 24
82 202 2.46
The table above shows that forty two (42) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that the National Policy on Education encourages multilingualism as a means of
fostering unity in Nigeria. Forty (40) others disagreed with this statements. The table
attracted a mean score of 2.46, which shows that the National Policy on Education does
not encourage multilingualism as a means of fostering unity in the country.
Table 22 Freedom of association is more in a multilingual nation like
Nigeria
Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X
SA = 4 10 40
A = 3 20 60
SD = 2 18 36
D = 1 34 34
82 170 2.07
The table above shows that thirty (30) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents
agreed that freedom of association is more in a multilingual nation like Nigeria. Fifty
two (52) others however disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean score
of 2.07 showing that freedom of association is not more in a multilingual nation like
Nigeria.
64
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The thrust of this research is to identify the implication of language policy in a
multilingual country with special reference to the Nigerian situation. The research
examined the definitions of multilingualism and factors that encourage it. Four research
questions were formulated to guide the study.
Related literatures were reviewed under the following headings.
The concepts of multilingualism
Multilingual countries and how they encourage multilingualism
Multilingualism in Nigeria.
Language policy in multilingual countries.
Theories on multilingualism, language planning and policy
Empirical study on language planning and multilingualism.
In carrying out this research, ten (10) secondary schools out of a total of twenty
five (25) secondary schools in Nsukka Education zone were selected using a random
sampling technique. The instrument used for the study was the questionnaire. The data
collected were analyzed using the mean of the responses of the respondents on each
item in the questionnaire. The cutoff point for the mean value was determined. Items
that attracted mean scores of 2.50 and above were considered as positive while items
with scores of less than 2.50 were considered as negative.
The result show that there is no problem in the implementation of language
policy in a multilingual country like Nigeria.
The study identified that the use of mother tongue/indigenous language should
be chosen to enhance academic performance of students.
The study also revealed that freedom of association is not hampered by
multilingualism, as typified by the Nigerian situation.
CONCLUSION
Multilingual problems in the „geographical expression‟ called Nigeria pre dated
1914 when the Northern and southern protectorates were fused into one by the colonial
administrators. In fact, multilingualism has always been the norm in both protectorates.
The real problem in our view is the near absence of well articulated solutions, concrete
65
implementation strategies and the political will to meet the scope and nature of these
hydra headed sociolinguistic problems; hence the need to adopt a multilingual approach
in solving Nigeria‟s linguistic problems in public and social life.
Both national, subregional and regional interrelated needs summon political
leaders, linguistics, language planners, educators, etc to evolve a more vibrant and
articulate policy which, no doubt should be armed with political teeth in the field. Far
from being a plague, multilingualism in the country should in fact be seen as a source
of wealth and strength, which if properly harnessed and managed will act as a source of
synergy for a more effective, directed, guided as well as vibrant evolution of a modern,
economically viable and technologically developed nation.
Rather than resorting to an ad hoc approach to linguistic policy, the government
should be seen and heard to be more committed in the implementation of a more
vibrant and articulated language policy which is expected to usher the country into the
21st century. Nigeria should embark at once on a vigorous drive for the training of
professional interpreters and translators in European and Nigerian codes. In tune with
Ajulo (1990:18), It may be necessary to create national or regional schools of
translation and interpretation, a usual practice of multilingual countries, whose areas of
specialization should cover political, scientific, cultural, literature, technical, literary
and philosophical fields.
Armed with the academic and practical knowledge of what each linguistic code
entails, as well the technical art of translations, which would be acquired from
programmes run in the tertiary institutions. These disciples of nation-building should
embark on the translation into Nigerian codes of books on agriculture, politics,
technology, economy, philosophy and prose, poetry, drama written by Nigerians and
foreign authors, official documents, laws, edicts, constitutions and other texts of the
state and federal government as well as those of sub-regional and regional statutory
bodies such as ECOWAS and AU.
This will enables Nigerians to understand and follow government works in
either their own codes or those of their immediate environment.
In addition, Nigerians should be encouraged to write in their maternal codes
where they possess the linguistic ability. This means that printing and publishing
houses may need to re-adapt themselves to the changing tide of events in the country.
66
Linguistic and cultural barriers are partly responsible for the prejudices which
have constantly held back the realization of the lofty objectives and aims of the
founding fathers of ECOWAS and AU with regard to sub-regional and regional
integration. The problems are not insurmountable. North America, and Asia, National
governments are busy promoting regional development and integration despite
linguistic and cultural differences. New languages are being learned in the schools and
in adult learning centers and older people are encouraged to return to formal education.
The West African sub-region should wake from the deep slumber into which
she had fallen in almost all spheres of human endeavour. Like the legendary Reggae
singer, Robert Nestar Marley a.k.a. Bob Marley exhorted Africans when he sang
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds,
Nigerians and Africans should take their destiny in their hands combining their dual
heritage in finding solutions to the problems of national, subregional and regional
integration.
Irrespective of differences in political convictions, indignations and principles,
the primary and more permanent interests of our people should be close to our hearts. It
is in this light as well as other reasons adduced above that General Abacha‟s foresight
in declaring that „Nigeria will embark on a vigorous language programme that should
ensure that our people within the shortest possible time, become bilingual‟ deserves to
be applauded.
The Federal Government should provide funds for general implementation of
the language policy in Education n carefully worked out stages that can gradually
implemented and evaluated with minimum strain on government(s) dwindling financial
resources. This should involve giving due consideration to:
a. the production of texts books, readers, and other literacy materials and
b. the training of teachers in the use of mother tongue medium
In this respect, the curriculum of teacher‟s training colleges should be reviewed
to incorporate principles of the methodology of mother tongue education.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The government should be seen and heard to be more committed in the
implementation of a more vibrant and articulate policy which is expected to usher the
country into the twenty-first century. Nigeria should embark at once on a vigorous drive
67
for the training of professional interpreters and translators in European and Nigerian
codes. In tune with Ajulo (1990:18), it may be necessary to create national or regional
schools of translation and interpretation, a usual practice of multilingual countries,
whose areas of specialisation should cover political, scientific, cultural, literature,
technical, literary and philosophical fields.
Armed with the academic and practical knowledge of what each linguistic code
entails, as well the technical art of translation, which would be acquired from
programmes run in the tertiary institutions, these disciples of nation-building should
embark on the translation into Nigerian codes of books on agriculture, politics,
technology, economy, philosophy and prose, poetry, drama, written by Nigerians and
foreign authors, official documents, laws, edicts, constitutions, and other texts of the
State and Federal Governments as well as those of sub-regional and regional statutory
bodies such as ECOWAS and AU. This will enable Nigerians to understand and follow
government works in either their own codes or those of their immediate environments.
In addition, Nigerians should be encouraged to write in their material codes
where they possess the linguistic ability. This means that printing and publishing
houses may be needed to re-adapt themselves to the changing tide of events in the
country. Readership in diversified linguistic codes need not to be small if and when the
reading culture is systematically drummed home to Nigerians and cultivated. It is, in
fact, the usual practice of multilingual societies. In all spheres of life as well as in
subjects such as politics, economics, agriculture, history, geography, mathematics,
physics, chemistry, linguistics and foreign languages, books, work books, and
pedagogical materials should be written by Nigerians, either individually or
collectively, as a matter of educational policy. For the purpose of quality these books
should be edited by a competent body of experts with regard to ideas, theories
methodology and style as well as technical qualities such as binding and presentation.
These would be more easily understood by Nigerians. Such books according to
Ade-Ojo (1977:6), would be fed and nurtured by Nigerians‟ own experience while at
the same time responding to certain geo-cultural realities of our immediate neighbours.
For economic, political, cultural as well as geographical reasons, Nigeria and Nigerians
stand to gain in establishing cultural, sporting, social, business, educational and
professional relations not only with our immediate neighbours but also with all other
French – speaking African and European countries.
68
REFERENCES
Abdulazizi, M.H. (1991). Language in Education: A Comparative Study of the
Situation in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Somalia In O. Garcia (ed.) Bilingual
Education: Festschrift in Honour of Joshua A Fisherman (pp. 75-85).
Amsterdam Philadelphia John Benjamins.
Ade-ojo (1997) Bracing up for the new Nigeria bilingual orientation. Paper presented at
the Fourth F.C.T French Day Celebration, Abuja, Federal Capital
Territory (FCT)
Agbedo, C.U. (2001). Linguistic Variation and Change in Igbo. A Quantitative
Approach: A.C.E. Resources, Konsult Nsukka. Enugu: page 30-34.
Agbedo. C.U. (2007) Problems of Multilingual Nations. The Nigerian Perspectives.
A.C.E. Resources Consult. Nsukka Nigeria P 12 – 30.
Ajayi (1965) Christian Missions in Nigeria. Longman.
Ajulo E.B. (1990). Nigeria‟s Linguistics requirements in the 21st Century: Reflections
on Lingua franca, national/official languages in Nigeria. In Nigeria
Forum
Ajulo S.B. (1990). Reflections on Sections 51 and 91 of the 1979 Constitution, African
Affairs, Vol. 89, No. 357, Oct. 1990, pp. 511. See also his “The Nigeria
Language Policy in Constitutional and Administrative Perspective:
Theory and Practice in JAAS, 1995, pp. 162-180.
Akinasso (1989) One nation, four hundred languages. Unity and diversity in Nigeria‟s
Language policy, Language problems and Language Planning 13 pp.
133-146.
Akindele (1999) The Sociology and Politics of English in Nigeria: An Introduction. Ile
Ife Nigeria. By Obafemi Awolowo University Press Limited.
Akwanya, A.N. (2007). Semantics and Discourse: Theories of Meaning and Textual
Analysis.
Alexander. P. (1972). An Introduction to Languages and language in Africa. London,
Heinemann.
Allen, and perraut (1980) Analyzing Intention in utterances. Artificial intelligency.
15:143-178).
Allen, J. F. and Raymond P.C. (1980). Analyzing Intention in Utterances. Artificial
Intelligence 15: 143-178.
69
Amadu, A. (1994) Education for national development In A Mahadi, G.A. Kwanashie
and A.M. Yakubu (eds) Nigeria: The state of National and the Way
Forward (pp. 423-444) Kaduna: Arewa House.
Appel, R. and Muyeken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism. London:
Edward Arnold.
August, D. and Hakuta, K. (Eds) (1997). Improving Schooling for Language Minority
Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, D.C., National Academy
Press.
Austin, J. L. (1965). How to do things with words, Oxford university press, New York.
Awoniyi, J.A. (1982): The teaching of African languages. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Ayandele E.A. (1966) The Missionary Impact on modern Nigeria. London: Longman.
Ayorinde D. (1985) The new language policy in Nigeria: Its problems and its chances
of success. In N Wolfson and J. Manes (eds) Language of inequality.
Amsterdam: Mouton.
Bamgbose A, (1976) Mother Tongue Education: The West African Experience, Hodder
and Stoughton.
Bamgbose A. (1983) Language And Nation-Building. A public Enlightenment lecture
delivered at the Bendel University. Ekpoma, June 15. 1983.
Bamgbose, Ayo (1991). Language And The Nation: The Language Question in Sub-
Sahara Africa. Edinburgh: Edinbursh University Press.
Banjo, A. (1978). Language Policy in Nigeria, in Smock, D.R. and K. Beutsi Enchill
(eds.). The Search for National Integration in Africa. New York: Free
Press.
Barto, Andrew G., Steven J. Bradtke, and Satinder P. Singh (1995). Learning to Act
using Real-Time Dynamic Programming. Artificial Intelligence, 72(1-
2): 81-138.
Beetens Beardsmore, H. (1974). Development of the Compound Coordinate Distinction
in Bilingualism. Lingua 33, 123-127.
Bender, M & R.L. Copper (1969) „The production of between intelligibility, Mimeo
Addis Abuba Quoted in C.A. Ferguson (1972)
Bernhard, E.B. (2000). Second Language Reading as a Case Study of Reading
Scholarship in the 20th
Century. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson and R. Barr (eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp.
791-811). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.
70
Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical,
Empirical and Classroom Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bloomfield .L. (1953). Language. New York: Henry Holt Company.
Brann C.M. (1982) Afro-saxons and Agro-Romans; Language policies in Sub-Sharan
Africa paper submitted tot eh Congress of Sociology, Mexico, August.
Brann C.M. (1982) Multilingualism et Education au Nigeria. Quebec: Centre de
Recherche sur le Bilinguisme.
Brann C.M.B (1978) Multilunguisme et Education all Nigeria Quebec centre
Internatioanl de Recherche sur le Bilnguisme university laval (B.73).
Brennan, Susan E. (1990). Seeking and Providing Evidence for Mutual Understanding.
Ph. D thesis, Department of Psychology, Stanford University.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in
Language Usage.Place Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, Bertram (1975). Belief Systems and Language Understanding. Technical Report
A1-21, Bolt, Beranek and Newman.
Carletta, Jean C. (1992). Risk Taking and Recovery in Task-Oriented Dialogue. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Carrel, Devine & Eskey (1988) Interative approaches in second language reading. New
York: Cambridge university press.
Cawsey, Alison (1993) Planning interactive explanations International Journal of man-
machine studies, 38:169-199.
Chan, M.C. et al (1983). Input/Output Switch in Bilingual Code Switching. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 12, 407-16.
Chumbow (1987) Towards language planning model for Africa Journal of west African
Languages XVII, 1. 15-22.
Chumbow B.S. (1990). The Place of Mother Tongue in the National Policy on
Education. In E.N. Emenanjo: Multilingualism, Minority Languages and
Language Policy in Nigeria. Agbor: Central Books Limited.
Clark Herbet H. and Catherine R. Marshall (1981). Definite Reference and Mutual
Knowledge. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag
editors, Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University
Press, Pages 10 – 63
71
Clark, Herbert H. and T.B. Carlson (1982). Speech Acts and Hearer‟s Beliefs. In Neil
V. Smith, editor, Mutual knowledge. Academic Press, New York, pages
1-37.
Clark, Herbert, H. and Catherine R. Marshall (1981). Definite reference and mutual
knowledge. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag.
Editors, Elements of Discourse understanding, Cambridge university
press.
Cobarrubias .J. (1983). Ethnical Issues in Status Planning. In Juan, Cobarrubias and
Joshau, A. Fisherman (eds) Progress in Language Planning.
International Perspectives: Berlin’s Mouton, 41-85.
Cohen, P. and Hector Levesque (1991). Teamwork. Nous, 25: 11-24.
Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Cronbach, L.J. (1970). Essential of Psychological Testing (3rd
ed.) New York: Harper
& Row.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge, University Press.
Dally (1978). The indigenous scripts of West African and Surinam: their inspiration
and design. African lanauge studies: 156-197.
Degroot M.H. (1969) Optimal Statistical decission. New York: McGraw Hill
Ekenem (1972) The 1963 Nigeria census: A critical Appraisal: Benin: Ethiope
Publishing company.
Elugbe, B.O. (1990) “National language and National development: In E.N. Emenajo
(ed) (1990) pp. 10-19. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1977) National
policy on Education, Lagos: Federal Ministry of Information.
Emenanjo E.N. (1998) Towards a pragmatic language policy for Nigeria: Hindsight as
foresight in the Educational Domain A handout.
Essien O.E. (1996) Code-switching and code mixing in Nigeria: A study of the
phenomena among some ethnic groups. A paper presented at a
Departmental seminar. Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana,
Lagos.
Essien O.E. (1981) The problems of teaching West African Languages: The Ibibio
Dimension. The Nigerian Language Teacher: Vol-4 2:-5-11.
Fafunwa B. (1969) The importance of mother tongue as a medium of Instruction.
Nigerian Magazine No. 102 (Sept-Nov.). Lagos. Ministry of
Information.
72
Fikes, R.E. and Nils J. Nilsson (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of
theorem Providing to Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence 2: 189-
208.
Fishman J.A. (1965) Who speaks what Language to whom and when? La Linguistique
page 26788
Fishman, J.A. et. All eds (1968). Language Problems of Developing Nations. New
York: John Wiley and sons Inc.
Fishman: J.A. (1968a) “Sociolinguistics and the Language problems of developing
countries” In Fishman et al (1968) on cit-pp.3-16.
Fishman, J.A. (1977). The Social Science Perspective, In Bilingual Education: Current
Perspectives. Social Science. Arlington, Va: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Fishman, Joshua ed. (1974). Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton,
pp:79 - 102
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English as a Second Language Learners Cognitive Reading
Processes: A Review of Research in the United States. Review of
Educational Research,65, 145-190.
Fitzgerald, J. and Cummins, J. (1999). Bridging Disciplines to Critique a National
Research Agenda for Language Minority Children‟s Schooling.
Reading. Research Quarterly, 34, 378-390.
Fitzgerald, J. and Nobblit, G.W. (1999). About Hopes, Aspirations, and Uncertainty:
First Grade English Language Learners Emergent Reading. Journal of
Literacy Research,31, 133-182.
Garabaghi Ninou (1983). Statur des Langues et Langues d‟enseignement dans les &
tats members de l‟UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO.
Garga, G.E (200) Bilingual Children‟s reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson and R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research (vol. 3, pp 813
- 834). Mahwab, N.J : Eribaum.
Garcia, G.E (2000). Bilingual Children‟s reading, In M.I. Kamil, P.M. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds), Hand book of reading research (volume 3, pp.
813-834). Mahwah, N.J. Eribaum.
Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitude and Motivation in Second Language
Learning. Rowley, Mass.
73
Grosz, Barbara J and Candace L. Sidner (1990). Plans for discourse. In Philip Cohen,
Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, editors, Intentions in communication.
The Mit press, Cambirdge, M.A, page 417-444.
Hansford K. et al (1976) An index of Nigeria language. Studies Nigeria Languages 5,
1.204.
Haugen, Einar (1974). The Ecology of Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hill, W. (1977-1978). Concerning Reading Theory. A reaction to carver‟s “Towards a
theory of comprehension and rauding” Reading Research Quarterly, 13,
64 - 91
Hovy, E. H. (1990). Pragmatics and Natural Language Generation. Artificial
Intelligence, 43(2): 153-197.
http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/degestglobal.html A Global Perspective on
Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (1999), G. Richard Tucker,
Carnegie Mellon University.
Ilolers, P. (1966). Interlingual Word Association. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behaviour 2,291-300.
John Lyons (1977). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. University of Edinburgh.
John Lyons (1981) Language and Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jubril M.M. (1990) “Minority Languages and Lingua Francas in Nigeria Education” in
Agbedo C.U. (ed) pp. 134-135.
Jyuotrinda (1968). Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistics and neuro-
psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, N. J. Erlbaum.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1965). Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Kirsten (1991): The lingustics Encyclopedia Edited by James M. Anderson, London
and New York.
Ki-zerbo, J. (1981). Methodology and African pre-History. In: J. Ki-zerbo (ed).
Geneeral History of Africa. Vol. I, p 5, London/Paris, James
Currey/UNESCO.
Kloss, H. (1968). Notes Concerning a Language-Nation Typology. In Fishman
Ferguson, and Das Gupta (1968).
Kolers P.A. (1966): Interlinqual word Association: Journal of verbal learning and
verbal Behaviour Vol 3, 291-300.
74
Krashen, S. (1981) Second language Acquisition and second language learning
(Pergamon press Oxford).
Latin, D.D. (1977), politics, language and Thought in Africa: the Somali. Chicago,
university of Chicago press.
Le Page, R.B. (1968). Problems to be faced in the Use of English as the Medium of
Instruction in Four West Indian Territories.
Lewis, David (1969) Convention. Harvard University Press, Cambridge M.A.
Litman, Diane. (1985). Plan Recognition and Discourse Analysis: An Integrated
Approach for Understanding Dialogues. Technical Report 170,
University of Rochester.
Mamara, et al (1968). Language Switching in bilinguals as a Function of Stimulus and
Response Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology 78, 208-15.
Mamara, J. (1967). The Bilingual Linguistic Performance: A Psychological Overview.
Journal of Social Issues 23, 59-77.
Mamara, J. and Kushnir, S.C. (1971). Linguistics Independence of Bilinguals: The
Imput Switch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour.
McRoy, Susan and Graeme Hirst (1995) The repair of speech act misunderstandings by
abductive inference. Computational Linquistics, 21 (4); 435-478.
Mitchell, 12, 81 Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London, New
York, Sydney, Australia & Auckland. New Zealand: Arnold.
Mitchell, R, & Myles, F (1998), Second Language Learning theories: London, New
York, Sydney, Austtralia & Auckland. New Zealand: Arnold.
Noss, R.B. (1971). Politics and Language Police in Southeast Asia: Language Science.
Bloomington, Indiana, No. 16, pp. 25-32.
Oaran O.O. (1990) Language Marginalization and National Development in Nigeria. In
Agbedo 2007 (ed) pp. 186-187.
Ochoa, A. (1995). Language Polcy and social implications for addressing the bicultural
immmigrant experience in the united States. In A. Darder (Ed), Culture
and difference (pp. 227-253). West port, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Olagoke .D.O (1980) Multilingualism in Nigeria and Choice of a National language:
Paper presented at the First L.A.N. Conference, University of Ibadan.
Olagoke, D.O. (1982) Choosing a National language for Nigeria. Journal of the
linguistic Association of Nigeria No. 1: 197-206.
75
Omamor A.P. (1982) Towards Mother-tongue education: A case study of the Itsekiri
Language project. The Nigeria language Teacher 5. 1:1 - 10
Osaji, Debe (1979) Language survey in Nigeria, Quebec, International Centre for
Research in Bilingualism Publication 13 - 81.
Oyalaran O.O. (1990). Language Marginalization and National Development in
Nigeria. In Agbedo 2007 (ed) pp 186 – 187.
Paradis (1977) Bilingualism and Aphaisa. In Whitaker, H and Whitaker, H.A. (eds)
Studies in Neurolinguistics Vol. 3, 65-121.
Pedhazur, E.J. & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, Designs, and Analysis: An
Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1939). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton.
Philip N. Anigbogu, M.B. Mba and Cecilia Eme (2001). Introduction to Linguistics.
Zik‟s Avenue Awka, Anambra State.
Pohl J. (1965). Bilingualism: In Revue Roumaine de Linquistique, 10, 343-349.
Pool, J. (1972). National Development and Language Diversity. In Fishman (1971-2,
Vol 2.)
Poth, Joseph. 1997a. L‟ amenagement linguistique en contexte Cducatif plurilingue
(Version Afrique). Schema directeur pour une reforme linguistique en
contexte scolaire. Collections Guides Pratiques Linguapax 1, Centre
International de Phonttique Appliquee, Universite de mons-Hainaut,
Mons. Pg 53
Power, Richard (1974). Computer Model of Conversation. Ph. D, thesis University of
Edinburgh.
Prince, Ellen F. (1981) “Toward a Taxonomy of Given New Infromation “in Peter cole,
editor, Cole, P. (ed) Radical Pragmatics: Academic press, pages 223 –
255.
Rubin (1968) National bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague
Sacks Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). A Simplest Systematic for the Organization of
turn taking in conversation. Linguistics 50: 325-345.
Salisbury, R.F. (1962). Notes on Bilingualism and Linguistic Change in New Guinea,
Anthropological Linguistics 417): 1-13. In Pride and Holmes (1972).
Saro-Wiwa, K. (1994) The Constitutional conference and national Cohesion. In
Mahadi, G.A Kwanashie and A.M. Yak (eds) Nigeria: The State of the
National and the Way Forward (pp. 527-534). Kaduna: Arewa House.
76
Schelling, Thomas.C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University press,
Cambridge, M.A.
Schmidt, R. (1997) Latmos and language policy: The politics of culture. In C. Garcia
(ed), pursuing power: Latinos and the political system (pp. 343-367).
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame press.
Searle, J.R. (1965) What is speech act? In M. Black, editor, philosophy in America.
Allen and Unwin, New York. Reprinted in John Searle, editor, The
Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press, 1971, pages 39-53.
Simire (2003). Developing and Promoting Multilingualism in Public Life and Society in
Nigeria. Vol. 16, No. 2pp 231-243.
Simire G.O. (1993). Etude sur la variabilite du pidgin Anglo-Nigerian: Le Temps, La
Modalite et l‟Aspect. These de Doctorate Universite de Nice-Sophia
Antipolis, Nice, Frang.
Simpson .E. (1978) Babel,: Perspectives for Nigeria Quebec International Centre for
Research on Bilingualism.
Sofunke, B. (1990) National language policy for Democratic Nigeria. In E.N.
Emenanjo (ed.) Agbor: Central Books Limited pp. 31-49.
Sorensen, A.P. (1971). Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American:
Anthropologist, 69: 670-840. In Pride and Holmes.
Tauli .V. (1974) The theory of Language planning. In J. Fishmand (eds) Advances in
language planning. The Itague: Mouton, pp: 49 – 67. Introduction to a
theory of language planning. Appsala
Tellefson. J.W. (1995) Power and Inequality in Language Education NY: Cambridge
University Press.
The New Zealand Edge: Heroes: Linguists: Harold Williams: www.nzedge.com
Trudgi P. (ed) (1978) Socio linguistics patterns in British English, London: Edward
Arnold.
Trudgi. P. (1983) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to language and society, rev. edn.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Valisministeerium: UKU MASING- Writer, theologian, philogist
Walker, Marilyan A., Janet E. Chan, and Stephen J. Whittaker (1997). Improvising
Linguistic style: Social and effective bases for agent personality. In
proceedings of the 1st conference on Automaous Agents, AGENTS 97,
pages 46-105.
77
Weinreich, Uriel (1974): Language contact: The Hague. Mouton
Wolff, Ekkehard (2000). Language and society. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse
(Eds.) African languages – An Introduction, 317. Cambridge University
Press.
Yule G. (1995). The Study of Language. New York. Cambridge University Press.
78
APPENDIX
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND
NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
QUESTIONNAIRE ON MULTILINGUALISM IN NIGERIA: IMPLICATION
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION
Dear Respondents,
The researcher is a post graduate student of the department of linguistics and
Nigerian Languages, carrying out an investigation on the above topic.
Below are questions and statements that seek your views on the topic under
investigation. Please respond to them by ticking [ ] beside the option as they apply to
you.
Your responses will be held in absolute confidence and will be used only for the
purpose of this study.
Thanks, for your co-operation.
Yours Faithfully,
Eze Victoria U.
79
SECTION A
Please tick in the appropriate column
1. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ]
2. Marital status: (a) Married [ ] (b) Single [ ]
(c) Widow/ widower [ ] (d) Divorced [ ]
3. Level of Education (a ) Secondary level [ ]
(b) Tertiary level [ ]
4. Place of residence in Nigeria………………………………………………
5. How many language do you speak one [ ] two [ ] more than one [ ]
6. If more than two, do you mix them in speech? Yes [ ] No [ ]
SECTION B
Tick [ ] in the column provided as may be appropriate to you
Key: A = Agree 3
SA = Strongly Agree 4
D = Disagree 1
SD = Strongly Disagree 2
S/No Question A SA D SD
1. These are the merits of multilingualism
(b) A multilingual/bilingual has access to the
world technology and educational
advancement
(c) It facilitates inter personal, ethnic and
interracial communication
(d) It enhances fast thinking and reasoning
80
2. The demerits of multilingualism are:
(a) It leads to dominance in one language
and a progressively decreasing
efficiently in the other languages.
(b) Creates some problems in learning in a
bilingual/multilingual setting.
(c) Multilingualism can lead to the death of
other languages.
3. Problems of implementing the National Policy on
Education in Multilingual Nigeria.
(a) Death of teacher in schools to teach the
agreed major languages in Nigeria.
(b) Non-committal by government to
provide text books and develop
orthographies as stated in the National
Policy on Education.
(c) The implication of the policy is
hampered by the clauses, “subject” to the
availability of teachers.
4. Multilingualism affects the Educational system in
Nigeria.
5. It poses a lot of problems in Nigerian Educational
system.
6. The use of many languages in the country makes it
difficult to have a language policy in education.
7. An indigenous language should be chosen as the
official language in Nigeria.
8. The National Policy on Education is relevant in
solving the multilingual problems in Nigeria on
Education.
9. The National policy is silent over the multilingual
problem in Nigeria Education.
81
10. Nigeria has no language policy.
11. A language policy is imperative for multilingual
country like Nigeria.
12. The content of the present National policy on
Education on multilingualism is grossly
inadequate.
13. The National policy on Education has not fully
addressed the problem of multilingualism.
14. The use of mother tongue aids learning and
enhances academic performance of students.
15. Mother tongue is considered adequate as a medium
of instruction in Nigeria Education system.
16. In early primary schools, mother tongue of our
pupils are used as a medium of instructions in our
schools.
17. The study of one Nigerian indigenous language as
a core subject at the senior level of our school
system affects the use of mother tongue as a
medium of instruction in our schools.
18. Children learn better and easier when they are
taught using their mother tongue.
19. The Nigeria Policy on Education does not
encourage multilingualism.
20. But it encourages the use of English as a medium
of instruction in schools.
21. Multilingualism breeds disunity in Nigeria.
22. The National Policy on Education encourages
multilingualism as a means of fostering unity in
the country.
23. Freedom of association is more in a multilingual
nation like Nigeria.