The main argument in this section is that for language-in-education policies to succeed, policy makers must acknowledge and establish the link between the indigenous languages and the economy. Such a link entails that an aca-demic (i.e. school-acquired) knowledge of the indigenous languages should become one of the requirements for access to resources, much as is the case for former colonial languages. In other words, there is the need for the indigenous African languages to be associated with at least some of the privileges and per-quisites that have, for centuries, been the preserve of former colonial languages only. The missing link between African languages and the economy, I argue, constitutes a major stumbling block in efforts to promote the social, political, and economic status of the languages. This argument draws on recent devel-opments in language economics, a field of study which, once again, investigates the ways in which linguistic and economic variables influence one another (Grin 2006). One of the key issues in language economics is the relevance of language as a commodity in the acquisition of which individual actors may have a good reason to invest. Within the framework of language econom-ics, linguistic products such as language, language varieties, utterances and accents are seen as goods or commodities to which the market assigns a value (Coulmas 1992). The term ‘market’ refers to the social context in which lin-guistic products are used. On a given linlin-guistic market, some products are valued more highly than others. The market value of a linguistic product such as a vernacular language is determined in relation to other languages in the planetary economy (Coulmas 1992: 77–85). It is, as Gideon Strauss (1996: 9) notes, an index of the functional appreciation of the language by the relevant community.
The literature increasingly recognizes the importance of the relationship between language and the economy in the success or failure of language poli-cies (Paulston 1988; Le Page 1997; Vaillancourt and Grin 2000; Kamwangamalu 2004; Canagarajah 2005; Walsh 2006). For instance, Paulston (1988: 12) remarks that language planning efforts are most likely to be successful if they are
supported by economic advantage or similar social incentives for the minority groups. Canagarajah (2005) makes a similar point when he says that it is important that nations give all languages not only a place in their curriculum but also a functional status in their social and economic life. Brook-Utne (2000) concurs, noting that if Africa is to develop economically and encourage mass participation in this process, the secret lies with its languages. True devel-opment of a political, economic or social nature, say Nettle and Romaine (2000:
172), cannot take place, however, unless there is also development of a linguis-tic nature. Unless the population has access to information, they will be con-trolled by a small elite minority who have access to the dominant language – in most cases, a metropolitan European one (Nettle and Romaine 2000: 172), as is the case especially in the African context. In other words, citizens who cannot functionally communicate in the economically dominant language, in this case a former colonial language, are excluded from political participation and opportunities for social advancement (Francis and Kamanda 2001: 236).
Along these lines, those who are able to exploit a former colonial language, whether to sell goods and services or ideas, not only wield a very considerable power (Halliday 2003: 416) over the masses, but they also, as Hasan (2003:
436) puts it, specialize in winning while those who are not specialize in losing:
the winners specialize in fixing the rules to ensure that the losers, in this case the masses, stay where they are. It follows that one major factor impeding the promotion of African languages particularly in education is the lack of incen-tives for studying or using them. It is not surprising, as Bamgbose (2006) notes, that even when a language policy makes it possible for African languages to be studied in the school system, students still do not willingly opt for them because they know that a qualification in an African language does not confer as much advantage, if any advantage at all, and opportunity for upward social mobility as a qualification in a Western language such as English or French does.
The need for upward social mobility, which in most African countries can be met only if one has knowledge of a former colonial language, has con-tributed to language shift that is currently being observed in Africa’s urban communities. For instance, in a study of the language situation in Botswana, Smieja (1998) reports that there exists a steady language shift from Setswana and other minority languages to English, for the language is seen as a powerful economic and educational tool, the language with higher social status and prestige, and one in which the elite reproduces itself. In a similar study,
Kamwangamalu (2003a: 234–36) reports that, in South Africa, Zulu-speaking pupils use both English and Zulu in the family, suggesting that language shift is indeed in progress, since bilingualism is a major precursor of language shift (Lieberson 1980). While English is welcomed with open arms into the tradi-tional domain of the Zulu language, that is the family, Zulu is not welcomed at all in higher domains such as education, for this is perceived as the preserve of English. Attempts to promote Zulu and other official indigenous languages in education raise a lot of suspicion; and are seen as a disguise and a painful reminder of apartheid-driven Bantu Education, whose key goal was to deny the black child access to English (Kamwangamalu 2003b: 75–78). I argue that, in Africa, the observed language shift is a consequent by-product of language policy failure, and more specifically, of the failure to implement economy-driven policies aimed at promoting the indigenous languages in education and other higher domains.
It is not surprising that language shift is taking place in Africa’s urban communities, nor is this unique to Africa. Research reports, summarized in Kamwangamalu (2003a: 227), indicate that individuals or language communi-ties around the world tend to shift to an economically dominant language due to the advantages with which the language is associated. For instance, in a study of ethnic mother tongue maintenance and shift among the Maltese migrants in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, Slavick (2001: 149) found that the strongest factor contributing to the shift from Maltese to English was the negative attitudes many Maltese hold toward the Maltese language because it has no prestige and is not economically viable in the Canadian context.
Gal (1979) draws a similar conclusion concerning the shift from Hungarian to German in Oberwart, Austria; and so do Dorian (1981) and Landon (2000) concerning the shift from Gaelic to English in East Sutherland. With respect to the Hungarian case, Gal explains that the need for the Hungarians to integrate into the increasingly dominant Austrian socioeconomic community for work and social advancement contributed to the shift from Hungarian to German.
As for the shift from Gaelic to English, Dorian and Landon note that Gaelic speakers have over centuries formed negative attitudes towards Gaelic because of the low status of the language, and this has contributed to the shift to English, which Gaelic parents believe is the way forward for their children.
Parental ambitions for the children are also said to have contributed to what Crowley (1996) calls pragmatic language shift from Irish to English in Ireland;
and to a shift from Tamil to English in Tamil communities in Singapore and
Malaysia (Gupta 1997). To counter language shift especially in the postcolonial nations, I argue, there must be a shift from the colonizer’s model (Wiley 2006), as described earlier, to what Wee (2003, and Chapter 2 this volume) refers to as
‘linguistic instrumentalism’, that is, ‘a view of language that justifies its exis-tence in a community in terms of its usefulness in achieving specific utilitarian goals such as access to economic development or social mobility’. After all, as Fishman, Cooper and Conrad (1977: 115) say, languages are rarely acquired for their own sake. They are acquired as keys to other things that are desired in life, among them the desire to be able to have access to employment, which now generally requires knowledge of a Western language such as English;
and the desire to move up the social ladder and identify with the power elite (Kamwangamalu 2004: 141).
Conclusion
This chapter has attempted to address the issue of vernacular education in postcolonial Africa. Unlike previous discussions of this issue, the chapter has sought to associate the promotion of indigenous languages in education with tangible outcomes for language users, such as access to resources, political par-ticipation, and upward social mobility. Drawing on recent developments in language economics, I have argued that African masses would not support or strive for an education in an indigenous language, even if it were made avail-able, unless this education were given a real cachet in the broader political and economic context. Rather, if they can afford it parents will send their children to a school where the medium of education is a Western language, for they are aware not only of the status of both the indigenous languages and a former colonial language in society, but also of the dividends that an education in the medium of a Western language will provide for their children and their future. Put differently, the payoffs for educating one’s child in the medium of a Western language far outweigh the payoffs of an education in the medium of an indigenous language. Accordingly, I argue that any language policy that seeks to promote indigenous African languages in education must demon-strate economic advantages if it is to be successful. I share the view, expressed by Ager (2001: 36–37), that without the bottom-up advantages, without an identity in which all social categories can share, language policies will remain empty, symbolic gestures, a plaything for the intellectuals. This is perhaps more so in Africa than in any other continent in the world.
References
Ager, Dennis (2001), Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
Akinnaso, F. Niyi. (1993), ‘Policy and experiment in mother tongue literacy in Nigeria’, International Review of Education 39(4): 255–85.
Alexander, Neville (1997), ‘Language policy and planning in the new South Africa’, African Sociological Review 1(1): 82–98.
Auerbach, Elsa R. (1996), ‘Re-examining English-only in the ESL classroom’, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly 27(1): 9–32.
Bamgbose, Ayo (2003), ‘A recurring decimal: English in language policy and planning’, World Englishes 22 (4): 419–31.
Bamgbose, Ayo (2006), ‘Multilingualism and exclusion: policy, practice and prospects’, Keynote address at the Symposium on Multilingualism and Exclusion. University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 24–26 April 2006.
Canagarajah, Suresh (2005), ‘Conclusion to “Toward a more inclusive applied linguistics and English language teaching: A Symposium” ’, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Quarterly 39(4): 745–48.
Coulmas, Florian (1992), Language and the Economy (Oxford: Blackwell).
Crowley, A. (1996), Language in History: Theories and Texts (London: Longman).
Dorian, Nancy (1981), Language Death: The Lifecycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialec. (Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press).
Fabian, J. (1986), Language and Colonial Power: The Appropriation of Swahili in the Former Belgian Congo 1880-1938 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Fishman, Joshua A. (2004), ‘Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing language shift’ in Tej Bhatia and William Ritchie (eds), The Handbook of Bilingualism (New York: Blackwell), pp. 406–36.
Fishman, Joshua A; Robert L. Cooper; and Andrew W. Conrad (1977), The Spread of English: The sociology of English as an Additional Language (Rowly, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc).
Francis, David J. and Mohamed C. Kamanda (2001), ‘Politics and language planning in Sierra Leone’, African Studies 60 (2): 225–44.
Gal, S. (1979), Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria (New York:
Academic Press).
Gilliam, A. M. (1984), ‘Language and ‘development’ in Papua New Guinea’, Dialectal Anthropology 8(4):
303–18.
Grin, Francois (2006), Economic considerations in language policy in Thomas Ricento (ed.), An Intro-duction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, (Malden, MA: Blackwell), pp. 77–94.
Gupta, Anthea F. (1997), ‘When mother-tongue education is not preferred’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(6):496–506.
Halliday, Michael A. (2003), ‘Written language, standard language, global language’, World Englishes 22(4): 405–18.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. (2003), ‘Globalization, literacy and ideology’, World Englishes 22(4): 433–48.
Heine, Bernd (1990), ‘Language policy in Africa’ in B. Weinstein (ed.), Language Policy and Political Development (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation), pp. 167–84.
Haugen, Einar (1981), ‘The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice’ in J. Cobarrubias and Joshua A. Fishman (eds), Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives (Berlin:
Mouton), pp. 269–89.
Kamwangamalu, Nkonko M. (2004), ‘Language policy/language economics interface and mother tongue education in post-apartheid South Africa’ in: N. M. Kamwangamalu (ed.), Language Prob-lems and Language Planning, Special issue: South Africa (Amsterdam: Benjamins) 28(2): 131–46..
Kamwangamalu, Nkonko M. (2003a), ‘Social change and language shift: South Africa’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 225–42.
Kamwangamalu, Nkonko M. (2003b), ‘Globalization of English, and language maintenance and shift in South Africa’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 164: 65–81.
Kamwangamalu, Nkonko M. (1997), ‘Multilingualism and education policy in post-apartheid South Africa’, Language Problems and Language Planning, 21(3): 234–53.
Lai, Pak-Sang and Bryam, Michael (2003), ‘The politics of bilingualism: a reproduction analysis of the policy of mother tongue education in Hong Kong after 1997’, Compare 33(2): 315–34.
Landon, John. (2000), ‘Language policy development in primary education in Scotland’, Paper presented at the ELET conference, University of Natal, Durban (September 2000).
Le Page, Robert B. (1997), ‘Political and economic aspects of vernacular literacy’ in Andre Tabouret-Keller, Robert Le Page, P. Gardner-Chloros and G. Varro (eds), Vernacular Literacy: A Re-evaluation (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Lieberson, S. (1980), ‘Procedures for improving sociolinguistic surveys of language maintenance and language shift’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25: 11–27.
Lin, Angel M. Y. and Peter Martin(2005) Decolonisation, Globalisation: Language-in-Education Policy and Practice (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
London, N. (2003), ‘Ideology and politics in English language education in Trinidad and Tobago; the colonial experience and a postcolonial critique’, Comparative Education Review 47(3): 287–320.
McArthur,T. (1983), A Foundation Course for Language Teachers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Mfum-Mensah, Obed (2005), ‘The impact of colonial and postcolonial Ghanaian language policies on vernacular use in schools in two northern Ghanaian communities’, Comparative Education 41(1):
71–85.
Nettle, Daniel and Romaine, Suzanne (2000), Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
OAU (1986), ‘Language Plan of Action for Africa. Council of Ministers’, Forty-Fourth Ordinary Session, July 1986. Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia.
Paulston, Christina B. (1988), International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (New York: Greenwood Press).
Ramasamy, K. (2001), ‘Mother tongue and medium of instruction – a continuing battle’, Language in India 1(6): 1–6.